 I am pleased to introduce you to our next leading lawyer: Alysia Christiaen. Read on to learn about Alysia's legal career, practice areas, and she has some great advice for working on your business development skills: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business I am a partner and the Chief Privacy Officer at Lerners LLP, with more than 10 years of experience in advising clients on the issues most critical to them. I practice in the areas of personal injury, privacy and class actions. I have extensive advocacy and appellate experience, including before tribunals, the Superior Court of Justice, and the Divisional Court. I am certified by the International Association of Privacy Professionals as a Certified Information Privacy Professional/Canada. 2. Why did you go to law school? I followed a childhood dream and it fortunately, really worked out for the best! For whatever reason, I fell in love with the show, Matlock, and decided that I wanted to be like Ben Matlock (minus the ukulele – I have no musical talent). 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? Grit, determination, confidence, sacrifices and hard work. I am a goal setter; I set one and then I work to achieve it. One of the more difficult things to do is figuring out the next goal now that I’m a partner! I do want to recognize the people I have had in my corner who made it possible for me to get to where I am today. My family and friends provide unwavering support. I have been blessed with amazing mentors – both inside and outside of the practice of law. I do not believe people who say they “made it on their own”. They either have had the most lonely journey, or they have forgotten the help they have received along the way. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? I’m proud of becoming a lawyer. The times we are currently living in are a reminder of the importance of the legal profession. It is our job to ensure that laws are being upheld, freedoms are not being infringed upon, and people’s rights are being protected. On a more personal note, my grandfather was very excited about my becoming a lawyer – it was great to be able to show him my diploma. An equally important achievement was being named a 2019 Lexpert Rising Star. The recognition of my contributions to my firm and to the community, while not necessary, was very rewarding. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? Challenges: Time management – I’ll leave the demands on a woman’s time in the family vs work balance to those who have children. As a woman who has chosen not to have any, it is often assumed that I am easily able to devote extra time to non-billable activities outside of “working” hours (the typical 9-5, which really does not apply to private practice). Learning how to say “no” comes with the challenge of getting over not being seen as a team player. I may not have children to raise in my non-work time, but I do have things to devote my time to that are equally important to me. Opportunities: The ones you make – if there is a project you want to work on, make the right people aware of that. If there is a niche area of law that you want to focus on, communicate that to your practice group leader. Most opportunities are not handed to you, they develop because of the ground work you have laid. You will find that you have more opportunities available if you get over your fear of rejection, and failing. Studies show that men will often apply for jobs or assignments even when they do not have all of the qualifications of an ideal candidate. Women on the other hand, do not. We really need to work on being more confident in our skills and abilities. When we do, more opportunities will present themselves. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? If you are headed for private practice, as you progress in your career, your business development skills become just as important as your legal skills. Do not ignore acquiring the skills you need to have a successful independent practice. Take advantage of the business development seminars that are offered, both within and outside of the legal profession. You also need to devote time to creating a business development plan. Building a practice is not something that you can do in your “spare” moments. You should be reviewing and revising your business development plan throughout the year. Evaluate what initiatives are working for you (i.e. gaining referrals) and which are not. Do not waste your resources on initiatives that do not have a return on your time investment. Importantly, be resilient and be patient. You will reach out to people and not get a response – do not take it personally. As anxiety-ridden as it can be, attend networking events and avoid spending all of your time with people you already know. Try to meet one new person – an easily achievable goal. It can be as simple as striking up a conversation with the person in the drink ticket line behind you. Building a law practice is grounded on building relationships; you cannot do that overnight. It involves getting to know a person, and gaining their confidence in you and your ability to effectively represent them, their business or their clients. ---------------------------------------------------- Thank you Alysia for taking the time to participate in this series and for your great advice! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Patricia Gamliel, Megan Cornell, Yola Ventrescu, Hilary Book, Margaret Waddell, Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan. 
0 Comments
 I believe this next book in my educational journey will also be an interesting and informative read for other lawyers. I admit I am late reading this book, which was released in 2017. It should not have taken the death of yet another Black man at the hands of police, and the protests that followed, for me to expand my reading library.
Written by Black feminist writer, activist, and educator, Robyn Maynard, “Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present” provides a clear and convincing evidence-based explanation of the origins and continuation of anti-Black racism in Canada. Like many Canadians, and as a white woman, it has been easy for me to slip into thinking that our country is “better than” our neighbours to the south. Throughout my childhood my school curriculum taught me to be proud of our “multiculturalism” and Canada’s “accepting” immigration policies. I was told about the enslaved people of the United States and their segregated school system, without mention of Canada’s 200 years of slavery and its segregated schools. “Policing Black Lives” takes this education and flips it on its head, revealing a less rosy truth. Each chapter focuses on a different topic in our country’s history and current systemic anti-Black policies. The topics include the history of slavery and segregation in Canada; racial capitalism and the making of contemporary Black poverty; criminal law and anti-Black racism; law enforcement violence against Black women; ‘misogynoir’ in Canada (punitive state practices and the devaluation of Black women and gender-oppressed people); border regulation; slavery’s afterlife in the child welfare system; anti-Blackness in the school system. The book is thoroughly well-researched and written with an educational and academic tone. This is not a light quick read, and that is okay. It is not meant to be. It is the type of book you will read for a little bit and then put down to digest the information, and sit with the uncomfortableness for a little while, before you move on to the next topic. I appreciated the intersectional approach Ms. Maynard took with this book and while it is focused on anti-Black racism, she also acknowledges Indigenous oppression in Canada. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic, especially lawyers who work within Canada’s legal system. Readers will leave with a deeper understanding of systemic racism in Canada.  Today we have the pleasure of meeting Patricia Gamliel a lawyer from the Montreal office of Dunton Rainville, Avocats & Notaires. Read on to learn about Patricia's career path and advice for new lawyers: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. Administrative law and Access to information law are my passion. Within the administrative law practice, Citizenship and Immigration law is my daily work. While it is an extremely complex practice, it is very much colored by a humanitarian component that keeps one on one’s toes. It also brings litigation and negotiation and requires knowledge and understanding of labour law, commercial law and real estate law. Unlike it, Access to Information law is developing quietly but surely. Our society requires more and more transparency and accountability from government and corporations and more rights toward access to information, especially personal information detained by these bodies are acquired. 2. Why did you go to law school? I always wanted to defend peoples’ rights. As a child, I, sometimes, got into trouble defending another student and it might have had an effect on my choice of a profession. It took time, though, because despite attending law school in France, I travelled and finally decided to set up roots in Canada. Within days, I was offered a teaching job on condition to complete a bachelor in Education at night. Two years later, I had completed said B.Ed., had become, in turns, a union representative, a member of the union executive and a collective agreement negotiator. Following a lock-out and strike, I decided to look again at law schools and one had just opened access to a Bachelor of law degree at night. By then I had two children and was pregnant of the third, still teaching full time but I was very happy! 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? Hard work. No, very hard work and constant work to this day. Above all, passion: My passion for Law never lessened. I am always interested in everything that surrounds the application and interpretation of a law. I started off with a small office, a computer, a server and an email address, rushing to pick up the children, cooking and reviewing homework and, then, spending the night working, which included answering emails at midnight sometimes. One must do the best he/she can because this is the obligation of a lawyer. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? I am very proud of the help I have been able to provide to so many people along the way, being clients, colleagues, and others. Referrals mean so much to me but to be invited to weddings and other important events in my clients’ lives always surprises me. As I always say, lawyers work hard, especially women who do not have it, ever, easy, and what keeps many of us going, is, from time to time, to have Justice rendered. That feeling keeps you through the constant stress many lawyers go through. And that, because, often, the rights I acquire for one, extend to others I will never meet but who will enjoy these rights. For example, when I started my career, it was difficult to be a representative in a client’s immigration file. I had the chance to discuss and resolve the issue, first, with the Quebec government in 1996 and, a few years later with Federal government. As a woman, it was particularly important to me to fight for a change of view on women standing in their own culture. Our tribunals acquire expertise on various religions and foreign cultures in immigration but, sometimes, do not see the societal shifts that take place. A typical example is the stance that divorced women from India and its region cannot truly get remarried. While it was true for the longest of time, it is not so anymore and I am happy, some women were able to come to Canada or bring in their husband. With regard to access to information, few people know that, until a few years ago, in the province of Quebec, a narrow interpretation of the applicable law made it quite impossible to access the social services and medical files of an intellectually challenged person. I successfully challenged the interpretation on the basis that our society, now, expect accountability and transparency from the departments involved. Today, the family, the curator and legal caregiver of a challenged person can access these files. As a community person, I continue to make myself available to help non-profit organizations by sitting on their boards of direction. I am, also, very involved with the Canadian Bar Association, the largest association for jurists in Canada which accomplishes, every year, so much for the Rule of Law and extension of rights. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? Women in law face numerous challenges and the first one is to live among what is still a man’s world. We are being told that a growing percentage of women attend law schools but not how many complete their degree or how many and how long does it take them to become partners in private practice unless they develop their own firm. I recognize the challenge is organizational for the ones who decide to take their full place as a woman, a mother and a lawyer in our society but women are resilient in nature. As for opportunities, it requires determination to reach them but also a change of culture. As progressive law firms and corporations realize, more and more, that the angle taken by women in law as well as in business differs, positively, from men’s, not only will women be offered more opportunities but these law firms and corporation will gain so much more in every area of their businesses as proven again an again by statistics. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Join a network, join an association such as the Canadian Bar Association for example, join a group! Jump into the ocean of law and do not ever think that someone better than you should get the position: You are it! ---------------------------------------------------------- I love that last line. How many times have we talked ourselves out of applying or putting our hand up because we think someone else is better or we are not "good enough". Let's stop that thinking! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Megan Cornell, Yola Ventrescu, Hilary Book, Margaret Waddell, Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   If you are a lawyer with an entrepreneurial spirit and an interest in technology, this next profile is for you. We have the pleasure of learning from lawpreneur and legal innovator Megan Cornell, founder, CEO, and lawyer at Momentum Business Law: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I run Momentum Business Law, an entrepreneur focussed practice headquartered in Ottawa, but serving businesses across Ontario. We are just turning 5 years old this summer and have been focused for all of those 5 years on figuring out how to deliver better legal services to entrepreneurs. We rely heavily on technology to be more efficient for both ourselves and our clients, allowing us to focus a lot on the client relationship. We’re launching an online DIY option for small business this summer called Gain Momentum. 2. Why did you go to law school? I knew since I was 10 and my Grandmother bought me a book called The Scales of Justice that I wanted to be a lawyer. However, most of my life I thought I would go into criminal defence work, particularly working to free the wrongly convicted. Then the summer before law school I worked with a great estates lawyer and realized that even estate law was really interesting to me – so when I finally entered law school I only ever took the one, required, criminal law class. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? Probably like most people, a bit of both! I went out on my own after 10+ years of practice at a mid-sized firm in Ottawa because I knew I wanted to do things “differently”, but I really didn’t know what that meant. I began by working out of my home office and with no clerk, because with no overhead I knew I would be completely flexible. That meant, however, that I had to learn to do absolutely everything for myself – coming from a firm with 60+ lawyers and double that in staff, that was challenging. However, that gave me the foundation to eventually grow the firm and I’ve always expected our team members to know how to do a very wide range of both client work and firm operations. The piece which was more by design was our firm’s focus on using technology and the design thinking employed by technology companies. My partner is in tech and most of our social circle is in tech – this has always help me understand our technology clients well, but it has also directed every thought I’ve had as I’ve designed and built the firm. Principles of lean and agile development, the perspective which product managers bring to customer work, just simply focusing on the firm as a client-centered instead of lawyer-centered organization. This approach has led us to be leaders in both process and technology innovation. I’m so incredibly proud of what our small little firm accomplishes – all because we have embraced a different way of thinking about law and how legal support is delivered to clients. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? I can’t believe that Momentum is 5 years old. There have been some really hard times – mostly when team members left to go on to different opportunities. I wanted to give up so many times. I can say now that it is a horrible idea to start a firm and grow it on your own – I should have had at least one more of “me”, but I’m incredibly proud of how I’ve managed to build a firm which accomplishes what it does. This has absolutely been done with the help of amazing Momentum team members along the way, but I never want to underestimate the burden that comes with the ultimate responsibility for the success of your clients and the livelihood of your team. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? This is such a tough question, because I think that so much of it is the mindset which we bring to our careers. If we accept that we want certain experiences and we commit to making those experiences happen and balancing any competing interests, then all challenges are opportunities. I think that women can get in their own way and overthink things – we have one shot at this so we should seek to enjoy what life presents us with as much as possible. There are SO many routes which our careers can take – they can even take us out of law completely, we just need the courage to find those paths. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Look out for number one (and in case there is any doubt, that’s you!). What I mean by that is, always consider your own best interest as you move through your career. It took me a while to figure this one out: I think that as women we are often oriented towards being people pleasers and trying to support others. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, but not to the detriment of our own careers. Also, you don’t and probably shouldn’t, try to plan out your entire career at the start. Be prepared for change and new opportunities, or for completely changing your mind about what you want to do. Our career is supposed to be challenging and fun (at least some days!), not just something we survive. One of the big secrets about finally finishing school and starting on your career is that it really isn’t as sexy or exciting as you thought it would be. Particularly if you haven’t been in a previous career, it is a bit of a wake up call that the responsibility and day to day routine of a career job can be hard. That doesn’t mean it is time to leave necessarily, but figure out what you do like about your career, and focus on making that the biggest part of what you do – you aren’t doing something wrong if you finally start practice and it isn’t nearly as amazing as you thought it would be! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, look out for number one! I like that. Also, I agree, planning out your entire career is futile. Life throws you curve-balls and you might miss opportunities if you are focused on your "plan". Thanks for participating in this series Megan, and congrats on Momentum's 5 Year Anniversary! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Yola Ventrescu, Hilary Book, Margaret Waddell, Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   I hope you had a lovely long weekend. Ready for some more great career advice from a leading lawyer? Read on to read about Yola Ventresca's legal journey and some her helpful advice: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I have a diversified, eclectic practice. In general terms, I would define it as a broad based administrative/litigation practice. I have had the good fortune of being able to shape a practice that reflects my passions – something that I value tremendously. My ability to do so was fostered and encouraged by my principals (and mentors): Peter Kryworuk, Shauna Powell and Kevin Ross. I was also lucky to have worked closely with Earl Cherniak in my early years. Earl told me: “do what you love, the files will follow.” That was – and is – invaluable advice that guides me constantly in everything I do. About half of my practice is devoted to health law. It was health law that brought me to Lerners in the first place. This includes primarily the representation of regulated health professionals confronting various issues including litigation, proceedings before their respective regulators (i.e. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario), privacy concerns, human rights proceedings and issues arising from hospital practice. I am part of a specialized team at Lerners that deals with issues related to medical assistance in dying, and, more recently, issues flowing from the COVID-19 pandemic. The balance of my practice involves various types of administrative and tribunal work. I have a robust practice focussed on post-secondary institutions. To this end, I provide advice to universities on a myriad of issues ranging from sexual violence to research ethics. I also have a significant labour practice focussed on post-secondary institutions. In addition, I am a certified workplace investigator, and, in this role, offer independent fact-finding services for various sectors. The rest of my practice consists of employment law, human rights law and appellate work. 2. Why did you go to law school? I should start by saying that it was not entirely a given that I would go to law school. After graduating from Huron University College at Western with an Honours BA, I was accepted into a graduate program in History and was seriously contemplating that route. However, the precarious nature of academic work ultimately led me to decide to go to law school (the dream of my five year old self, even though I had no lawyers in the family). So, I accepted an offer from the Faculty of Law at Western University. There, I had the incredible fortune of being mentored by some outstanding professors. The three that come to mind most vividly are Dr. Melanie Randall, Dr. Rande Kostal and Professor Robert Solomon. Professor Solomon’s course in Health Law was life-changing. I didn’t know what health law was before I started law school. Professor Solomon’s enthusiasm for the subject and his ability to push his students to reach beyond their grasp really inspired me. After finishing first in his health law class he suggested to me that I try to secure an articling position at Lerners. I remember vividly a conversation in his office on a Sunday afternoon in 2004 when he told me that in terms of health law, Lerners would always provide me with an intellectually challenging flow of health law files – and he was right. With letters of support from my mentors, I landed one of three available articling positions at Lerners that year. While one might think the rest was history, my love for academic work quietly followed me through my articling year at Lerners. So much so that at the end of the year, after much soul searching, I decided to apply for the full time LL.M. program at the University of Toronto. My husband was to be on sabbatical that year, and I could not pass up the opportunity to be a full-time student one last time. With funding offers from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, I advised Lerners I was withdrawing my name from consideration for hire back. We sold our home and packed our bags for Toronto. My year at the University of Toronto was intellectually stimulating and exciting. I entered the specialized Health Law and Policy LL.M. program. There, I again encountered inspiring mentors and health law “giants” including Dr. Rebecca Cook, Dr. Colleen Flood and Professor Joanna Erdman. I pinched myself almost everyday at my good fortune to be at the epi-centre of health law research. I was honoured to have my thesis supervised by Dr. Bernard Dickens, arguably Canada’s leading expert on medical law. As I neared the completion of my LL.M., I was encouraged by several of my mentors to pursue doctoral studies. After considerable soul searching and many long conversations, I decided that I wanted to practice law, and health law in particular. I was offered a job at Lerners in London after I completed my LL.M. It’s been my home for the past thirteen years. I will say that I have never lost my interest in, and commitment to, scholarly research and teaching. I’ve been lucky to be a part of a firm that supports my passion. I’ve published many articles in peer-reviewed journals and have taught at Western’s Faculty of Law. I feel that my scholarly work informs, sustains, and enriches my practice. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? The short answer is that I worked hard. Really hard. And, as the old adage goes, luck is what happens when hard work meets opportunity. And that’s precisely what happened to me, with the assistance of some tremendous mentors and sponsors. I was raised with a very strong work ethic. I come from a big, Lebanese family. My father left Lebanon in the 1970s with eighty dollars in his pocket. My mother, who left Lebanon when she was six, was raised by her mother in precarious socio-economic conditions. My parents eventually became teachers (my mother would later become a school principal). I think understanding (and seeing) the tremendous sacrifices they made for their children propelled me forward. Getting an education, gaining a profession – these were a given growing up. I worked as a waitress and bartender during my undergraduate and law school studies, sometimes working up to thirty hours a week. This forced me to be organized and disciplined with my time. Working in the service industry imparted in me all kinds of skills which, at the time, I had no idea would assist in a legal career. Things like really listening to someone, picking up on non-verbal cues, diffusing tense situations, working late nights. I carried those lessons, and the lessons of my childhood, into the practice of law. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? While I have been honoured to receive a number of external distinctions (Lexpert Rising Star, rankings in Best Lawyers in Canada and the Lexpert Legal Directory), my most significant professional achievement was being a named an equity partner in December 2015; eleven months after I returned from parental leave following the birth of my daughter in August 2014. The journey to parenthood was a difficult one for me. My daughter arrived in my sixth full year of practice. By that time, I was a non-equity partner. Having been focussed on myself and my career for so long, I was petrified that I would find my parental leave difficult, that I would miss my files and my work. But I didn’t. In fact, I loved my leave (I say this knowing it is not so for many women and many, many, struggle tremendously). I loved it so much that when my six month leave was almost up, I started to have doubts about going back (or going back so soon). I remember taking my daughter to a lunch at the mall with our former managing partner and one of the great mentors of my life and career, Janet Stewart, Q.C. Eating my salad while rocking my almost six-month old daughter in her stroller, I told Janet that I didn’t know that I was ready; that I was losing sleep about going back to work so soon and that I would really like to just stay in my stretchy clothes for another six months. Looking me straight in the eye Janet said: “Yola, just give it a try; come back. If you come back and you need more time, we’ll give it to you, no questions asked.” If all of this had been playing out on film, a lighting bolt would have hit the protagonist at this point (me). With those few words of reassurance, and the knowledge that I could change my mind, I went back to work in February of 2015. Much to my surprise, having a child transformed the way I practiced. I worked smarter, more efficiently, learned to prioritize my time and got good at saying no. As each day passed, I felt more comfortable; I knew that I could be a good parent and a good lawyer. And that gave me confidence. Confidence for what my husband would jokingly refer to as the last 100 metre sprint to the finish line. I realized that equity partnership would do so much, not only for me, but for my family. So, I pushed through that last and hardest sprint. Being voted into the partnership the same year I returned to practice is something that will always bring me pride. I am most proud of myself for having found that extra gear; for just putting one foot in front of the other to achieve a long-cherished professional and personal goal. For not stopping. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? There is no doubt in my mind that private practice, to a significant extent, remains based on anachronistic views of family life from fifty or more years ago. It is premised on there being two partners in the home – one bound and one “un-bound”. In this paradigm, the “un-bound” partner, almost always the man (in heterosexual relationships), has limitless flexibility. He is able to take a 7am breakfast meeting because someone else is getting the kids ready for school; he does not hesitate to stay late at the office because someone else is tasked with the responsibility of school pick-up and homework oversight. He’s able to leave town on the drop of a dime, because the “domestic arena” is covered. Frankly, in my own life, I have the great benefit of having a partner who supports me (and has always supported me) in real and tangible ways. How? By taking on the lion’s share of the day-to-day work required to raise our daughter (while at the same time being an accomplished scholar, author, and educator). This was game changing for me. The empirical evidence regarding the attrition of women from private practice all points to one fact. It is not the having of children or the taking of parental leaves that makes many women feel that private practice and motherhood are not compatible. It is the early years of child-rearing and private practice that makes many (who want to stay in private practice) feel they have no choice but to leave. Now that I am in a position to assist others, most meaningfully as a mentor to junior lawyers, I am mindful of these hidden barriers in the domestic sphere. I offer as much flexibility as possible in terms of meeting times and calls. I try to mirror positive self-care behaviour, such as taking time for myself, putting boundaries around my personal engagements and saying no to office housework. I spend lots of time talking to my mentees about “making it all work” and that how “making it all work” sometimes means just getting through. I talk about when I’ve failed as much as I talk about when I’ve succeeded. I encourage them to think about the long game; the way that things change as one moves through the ranks of a law firm. I recognize that there are a myriad of other issues women face in law: pay inequity, sexual harassment and unrecognized/unpaid work. I had the opportunity to write a recurring column this past year for Advocacy Matters that addressed many of these issues. Part of my process was eliciting input for the various columns from female lawyers. My DMs were consistently flooded with stories from women talking about their experiences with sexual harassment, inappropriate prying into their personal lives, and being passed over for important files. We may like to think that the profession has dealt with these issues. We have not. Yes, there has been progress, but there remains a tremendous amount of work to do to address the systemic barriers that contribute to the under representation of women in the ranks of equity partnership and firm management. All that said, there is still so much good that should inspire us all. At Lerners in London, I would need well more than two hands to count the number of women at the equity partner rank who have families and thriving legal practices. There is a real culture of reaching behind you to pull up the next woman in line. Having been the beneficiary of this culture, I am doing my part now to reach out my hand. This means providing meaningful sponsorship, introduction to clients, work on high quality files, and pragmatic advice. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? First and foremost, be honest with yourself. Do you enjoy the type of law you are practicing? If not, make the switch early. Find a firm with a culture of not only mentorship, but sponsorship. Try things before you think you are ready. Put your hand up for opportunities. Ask for opportunities. Be a trusted colleague. Always be professional with opposing counsel. Protect your reputation. Find a friend at work. Not just a colleague, a true friend. Someone who will support you, let you vent and have your back. And be that person for someone else. Take pride in your work. Think of yourself as an apprentice and soak up as much as you can. The early years go by in a blink. And, finally, but most importantly, remember that ours is a profession imbued with privilege and power. Stand up for people who are marginalized. Try your best to listen and understand. Lend your voice to the cause of equity and speak up when you see an injustice. Try to do your small part to move the profession toward a model where all feel included and respected. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow! So much awesome advice in this one post. Thank you Yola for taking the time to provide such thoughtful, personal and valuable answers to these questions. I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Hilary Book, Margaret Waddell, Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   This week in the Women Leading in Law blog series, we learn about the career and law practice of Hilary Book. Read on for some great tips for lawyers:
1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I founded my own commercial litigation firm, Book Law, about 1.5 years ago after a dozen years practicing at other firms on Bay Street. We do everything from breach of contract cases to professional negligence to real estate disputes, with a lot of experience in oppression and fraud cases. Our focus is on providing smart, practical advice and representation. This means helping clients make decisions that are in their best long-term strategic interests, and finding creative solutions rather than just marching rigidly through each step of the litigation process. One of the things I love most about my practice is its diversity, both in terms of the cases we handle and the people we represent. We act for a wide range of clients, from publicly traded companies to family-owned businesses to individual entrepreneurs, in all sorts of different industries. We also act for clients from many different cultural communities, with many different life stories. The diversity of my practice requires constant learning on my part, which is a joy. 2. Why did you go to law school? In some ways, it was a default. I always loved going to school, but I didn’t want to go into grad school or academia – I do much better with structure and frequent deadlines! I enjoyed some of the work I’d done in undergrad in legal philosophy and restorative justice, and thought law school would be a good way to continue to explore Big Questions. I went to law school planning on becoming a “constitutional lawyer”, without any real idea of what that meant. Then I got to law school and found that constitutional law was my least favourite course, and that I really enjoyed my private law courses. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? A bit of both. I knew I wanted to be a courtroom litigator, and I actively sought out the experiences and work that I thought would get me there. At the same time, no one succeeds without a little of bit of luck to be in the right time at the right place. As for opening my own firm, that’s not something I ever planned to do or thought I could do, but as it turns out, I was wrong. It just goes to show that, even if you do have detailed career plans, you need to stay open to new ideas and adapt accordingly. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? Book Law. I started the firm with a lot of confidence in my legal abilities, but I was a bit more concerned about my ability to generate work. I’m really proud that I’ve created a financially successful firm while doing the work I like doing, and practicing in a way that accords with my values. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? In commercial litigation, it can still be really challenging for women to be taken seriously as advocates and, especially, as lead counsel. This is very problematic when it comes to landing new work. From time to time I’m told outright that a client doesn’t want to retain me because I’m a woman (which at least has the virtue of confirming that it isn’t all in my head), but more often I hear variations on “you seem really nice, but are you tough enough to handle my case?” (They always come around once they see me in court, but if I don’t get hired in the first place, they don’t get the chance.) I believe that women have the opportunity to be leaders for change in law. The challenges that many of us still face give us perspective on the systems, attitudes and practices that serve to exclude so many. While we still have a long way to go, there is a lot of openness now to hearing our perspectives and voices. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Don’t be afraid to be ambitious. Don’t be afraid to ask for what you want. Be a smart and strategic advocate for yourself, just as you are for your clients. Be true to yourself – your values, your interests, your goals. Take care of yourself, physically and mentally – it is not in the best interests of you, your clients or your firm for you to burn out. We all need support, so nurture your network. Stay in touch with classmates, join professional organizations and be an active volunteer. Seek out mentors and sponsors, and be a generous mentor yourself. These relationships are critical to sustaining you through a long and happy career that will inevitably have ups and downs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Hilary for taking the time to participate in this series. I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Margaret Waddell, Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.  I first met the next leading lawyer in this series, Margaret Waddell, at an Advocates' Society Women in Litigation conference. She was the mentor assigned to my table of women litigators. Marg had a lot of valuable and no-nonsense advice to give. It was much appreciated by everyone at the table. Read on to learn Marg's story and some of that advice: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. In June 2017, I opened Waddell Phillips PC with my two partners, John K. Phillips and Julia Tremain. WP is a litigation boutique, which has now grown to a total of 8 lawyers, two contract lawyers, an articling student, Lakehead placement students, summer student and 8 support staff. My practice focusses on plaintiff side class actions, but I still also act on commercial litigation and executive employment matters, and some defence work on class actions. The class actions that we have underway or under investigation cover a broad gamut, including institutional abuse, consumer protection, product liability, medical devices, privacy breaches, and securities misrepresentations. We are always keeping our eye open for the next case that captures our interest, and that meets our firm objective of providing access to justice for victims of injustice or corporate malfeasance. 2. Why did you go to law school? I knew that I wanted to be a lawyer from a very young age. I was inspired by the character of Beth Davenport on the TV show Rockford files. Beth was a strong, independent woman, who spent a lot of time getting her client out of trouble with the law. However, criminal law was never of interest to me. My desire to become a lawyer was more based upon the fact that it would lead to a career that would allow me to be self-determinative, while at the same time I could provide advice and guidance to others who had brushed up against the legal system and needed help. Helping those in need has always been a strong motivating factor for me. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? If you had asked me 30+ years ago what I would be doing now, I’m pretty sure that running my own eponymous firm would not have been anywhere near the top of the list. When I left law school, I certainly knew that I wanted to be a litigator, but more than that, I had no idea. I was pretty naïve – a small town girl with no lawyers in the family or our circle of friends, and no concept of how a business actually runs. I was also very young (I started law school after only 2 years of undergrad). However, along the way I had the great fortune to have some amazing mentors, who taught me the ropes; but also gave me a lot of leeway to learn through my own successes and failures while running files on my own, with only a light touch of supervision. I feel very fortunate to have matured as a lawyer when this was the norm, knowing that it has become increasingly rare for junior lawyers to be entrusted with clients’ cases from the beginning to the end. I also had an abundance of role models – who represented both what I would like to become and what I would never want to be. I believe that you need exposure to the good, the bad and the ugly in order to really come to terms with who you are in this profession, and what you can aspire to achieve. I learned from all these people, and eventually figured out what I really wanted to do, and that meant being my own boss, rather than trying to conform to someone else’s ideal of what the practice of law should look like. As for the practice area, that was entirely by chance. When I was called to the bar in 1989, the Class Proceedings Act had not yet been enacted. That came three years later. Contingency fees had been forbidden in Ontario up until that time, and when the CPA came into force, the thought of taking on such massive cases, and carrying the extraordinary risk that is associated with them seemed potentially foolhardy and definitely a gamble. That was not me. In the early years of practice I was no risk-taker. However, over time, I cautiously waded into the class action world, and the more exposure I had, the more I embraced it. The CPA is such an influential tool for enforcing the rights of the disenfranchised – it gives power to the powerless. It is a serious behaviour modification tool, and ensures that institutional and corporate actors can be held accountable for their misconduct. I like that, and it gives me a sense of purpose to know that I am helping people who might otherwise go without a remedy when they have been harmed. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? I don’t think that I have a single most significant achievement. Sure, there have been some great wins along the way, and also some spectacular losses. That comes with more than 30 years in the trenches. But the thing that I am most proud of is to be the only female head of a class action firm in Canada, to my knowledge. I am enormously proud of my firm and the wonderful group of professionals that have joined with me to make it a success. In three years, WP has grown to triple its original size. We have a wide range of class actions underway, and more in the investigation stage. In fact, I have achieved exactly what my original business plan had envisioned, all seemingly without any extraordinary effort on my part to make it happen. I am also immensely grateful to all the lawyers who had the faith in me to refer clients, or who sought me out to co-counsel on actions, and even more so to those that have taken the chance to work with me, when there are obviously safer and potentially more lucrative alternatives available to them. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? The opportunities for women in law are vastly expanded from 3 decades ago. Women entering law are no longer the exception, or seen as a “woman in a man’s world”. I don’t believe that newer calls need to go to the same lengths that those that preceded them had to go to achieve equality. The world is starting to acknowledge that the diversity of views and life experiences that women bring to the profession, although different from their male peers, are equally valid and important. There are more women in leadership roles, and the networks of mentors and sponsors are ubiquitous. These were non-existent when I started in the practice. I think that as the barriers are broken down, and new attitudes take over the profession, particularly about the ways that we practice law, the opportunities are endless. Innovation and technology have made a huge difference and will continue to do so. Women are equally placed to ride that wave, and to design their own futures in a way that suits their circumstances, skills and aspirations. Sure, the big firms will endure, and for many that is the grail that they seek. It will be there for them; but the opportunities for women now are really only circumscribed by their own imagination and desire. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? I don’t have a pat answer to this question. It really depends on the woman, and what she wants to get out of her legal career. The obvious advice is to always be prepared – know your stuff – because to succeed in this profession, as in any other, you have to work hard and be prepared for the unexpected. But that’s a trite response. There are a lot of very hard working, highly capable women with successful careers, and they are not happy. I think that unhappiness comes from compromising your own values and desires. So, I would say, don’t do that. Don’t settle in a job that is sucking away your joy just for the security of a pay cheque. Take risks. And be true to your inner self. If you do the things that make you happy and give you fulfilment, you will be a success. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for these wise words, Marg, and thank you for participating in this series. I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Nandi Deterville, Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   While I normally only review “law” related books for my blog, I believe this book will be beneficial to all lawyers and leadership teams at law firms.
Like many of you, I have been reflecting over the past month or so on what I can do to address racism, and in particular anti-Black racism in our country and our profession. I am committed to anti-racism, but know I am not doing enough. Right now, my activism is donation based and I am listening and learning, and I am trying to amplify BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Colour) voices. I have also committed to the Anti-Racist Small Business Pledge compiled for and presented during a town hall on listening, learning and committing to building an equitable, anti-racist organization that I attended in June, organized by Ericka Hines, Rachel Rodgers, and Susan Hyatt. Part of my listening and learning is reading more books on anti-racism and by more diverse authors. The first book I finished was “Subtle Acts of Exclusion: How to Understand, Identify and Stop Microaggressions” by Dr. Tiffany Jana and Dr. Michael Baran. I chose this book because while overt-racism may be easy to spot, we must also not forget about the subtle everyday actions that exclude BIPOC in the legal profession. This book focuses on what are commonly known as “microaggressions”, a term that originated in the early 1970s with the work of Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce. Microaggressions have been defined as indirect or subtle discrimination against members of a marginalized group. The authors describe these as subtle ways that verbal and non-verbal acts serve to exclude people. They want to reframe the term “microaggressions” to “subtle acts of exclusion” or "SAE" as there are drawbacks to the term “microaggression”. There is a lack of clarity about what a microaggression is and the term is communicating implicitly that it is not really a big deal (just “micro”). Also, the term itself provokes defensiveness (“Can I talk about your microaggression?” “I was not being aggressive!”). The authors prefer the term SAE as these acts are subtle and they serve to exclude people. An example, when someone asks a racialized person “So, like what are you?” or “Where are you really from?” On the surface it might seem like the person is just being curious, however implicitly under the surface they are communicating “You are not normal” or “You are a curiosity”. The book provides several examples of the harm that SAE cause to individuals in general, but especially in the workplace. As they note: “Work should not be a place where we are subtly injured on a regular basis until we have retreated into little cocoons of isolation and misery.” It is important that SAE are addressed at work and, I say, especially at law firms. As the authors observe: "Whether in the form of exaggerated stereotypes, backhanded compliments, unfounded assumptions, or objectification, SAE are insidious and damaging to our coworkers and colleagues." What stood out for me was the stark truth that everyone commits SAE against others. Even the authors, experts on equity, diversity and inclusion, shared SAE they initiated. Thinking back, I cringe at some SAE I have said or done. The authors repeatedly underscore the point that SAE are never about intent. Many of us are well-intentioned in our comments or actions, but that is not the point. While I might have thought I was saying one thing, in reality, I was implicitly communicating something quite different. And that is not okay. The book sets out a framework for identifying what SAE are implicitly communicating: You are invisible. You are inadequate. You are not an individual. You don’t belong. You are not normal. You are a curiosity. You are a threat. The authors provide a step by step guide and recommended practices when SAE happen from the perspective of everyone involved, including the person who is being excluded by the SAE (the subject), the person who says or does the SAE (the initiator) and anyone who overhears or witnesses the SAE (the observer). The observer role is significant as the observer can take this opportunity to become an ally. The book also gives advice on how to have a bigger conversation about SAE at work. SAE need to be addressed in the culture of the workplace or law firm. The goal being that there is an environment in which all people involved in an SAE know how to respond in a productive way. The authors point out that: “Organizationally, the culture can normalize the act of intervening by helping people recalibrate their expectations that SAE are a common part of human behaviour.” It is not about punishing people who slip up, it’s about “making room to name the problem and intervene in the moment to prevent further harm”. Some suggested language is provided by the authors to use when an SAE occurs. Some of the examples sound a little contrived to me, but they do provide some guidance and some language to start with that you can make your own. The book is extremely non-judgemental and comes from a place of wanting to help and make change rather than calling out bad behaviour or bad people. (The authors prefer “calling people in” to a conversation.) It is an easy and accessible read and I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about this subject. I recommend using this book to guide a conversation with the members of your firm, including all lawyers and staff. There are several helpful nuggets of wisdom and advice in this book. Many lawyers are subtly excluded in law firms all the time. How can we stop that? Start with reading this book and committing to change. Next Up on my Reading List: Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to Present by Robyn Maynard.  I met Nandi Deterville when we both were volunteers on the executive for the Ontario Bar Association's Women Lawyers Forum. Pre-COVID we would also often run into each other at several networking events (need advice on networking? Go to Nandi, she is an expert). Nandi inspires me every time I see her with her wit, compassion, and tenacity. 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I practice Canadian Immigration and Estate Planning lawyer with AP Lawyers in Pickering. The Firm specializes in Family Law, Immigration, Real Estate and Estate Planning Law. It has been rated number 1 family law firm in Durham Region. Angela Princewill, the founding partner, is a mediator and a member of the Family Dispute Resolution Institute of Ontario. At AP Lawyers, our mission is to help make peoples’ family lives better. This could involve (1) drafting cohabitation agreements, marriage contracts or negotiating favorable settlement in the case of separation or divorce, (2) assisting families with selling their homes and buying a new one so they can move into the next, and (3) uniting families and/or helping families through the Canadian immigration processes. We are very passionate about our mission of making peoples’ family lives better and are recipients of the Top Choice Awards for the Top Family Law Firm in the Durham Region for the previous five consecutive years. 2. Why did you go to law school? I’ll confess that to this day, the process surround my decision to go to law school is not very clear. The year I started law school, I had been set to start my masters’ studies in International Development in the United States, by late spring, early summer I had applied and was accepted to Law School in England. At the time I began I didn’t think that I would actually practice law but use the qualification to guide my path as an international policy advisor. Once in Law School however I realised that it was exactly where I needed to be. I loved the whole process of qualifying in the practice of law. 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? Timing, Timing, Timing. In March of the year that I started law school I had been, as mentioned previously, actively planning on pursuing a masters program. But by September I was attending my first class of Law School in the UK. Things just seemed to fall into place once I made the decision to apply. After qualifying, I started practicing in my home country of Saint Lucia. I certainly did not envisage that I would have moved to Canada and qualify to practice here. The processing of my own Immigration application was delayed for years, but then finalized just when I was looking for alternatives to my practice. As an NCA student, I had not appreciated the importance of the timelines in the Ontario licencing process. As a result I had not been searching for the type of articling position that I wanted. The Law Practice Program (“LPP”) turned out to be the perfect choice for me as my previous practice was in a General Practice small firm. The format of the LPP allowed me to get the experience I wanted in multiple practice areas and my placement allowed me to explore an area of practice that I had not considered before. I applied for my current position after seeing the position posted in a Facebook post. As luck would have it, minutes after I initially read the advertisement, the post was inadvertently deleted and I could not find it. I decided to submit my application, in any event not knowing if the post was made in error, and the rest as they say is history. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? On Tuesday April 7, 2015 while attending my first OBA event by myself I could not have imagined that today I would be the incoming Vice-Chair of the OBA’s Women Lawyers Forum (“WLF”). As a foreign trained, new Canadian, I realized quite quickly that I needed a network of like-minded practitioners to help guide my career. The benefit of the free/reduced cost programing available to law students, including NCA candidates was very helpful. I was able to attend an event every month and soon found myself learning so much. The programs of the WLF were incredibly enlightening and inspiring. Getting onto the executive for the first time during the 2016-2017 term was such a proud moment. I am proud to have the opportunity to be involved with the conceptualization and planning of each program that our section executive successfully produced during my time on the executive.. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? From my perspective as a black, female, Foreign Trained Lawyer (“FTL”), there are certainly what appears to be a steeper curve in getting through the licencing process and securing a well-paying position in the profession. Typically FTLs face the difficulty of employers understanding how their skill set and experience translates to working within the Canadian legal system. As has been discussed openly in recent times, the challenges faced by black women in the profession mirror that of black women in other professions in our society. However, our lived experience is also our greatest strength. Our mere existence is proof that we are adaptable, capable and can thrive. The opportunities are really everywhere we are willing to find them. A challenge should not mean a reason not to do. I am a firm believer that we need to perform the type of work that feeds our soul and leaves our community better than when we got there. Network, network, network. That right position that allows you to shine is there waiting for you to work towards it. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? Be comfortable with being uncomfortable. I truly believe that a bit of discomfort is my greatest motivator and teacher. If what you’re doing isn’t just a bit challenging then maybe you need to add a more challenging task, this can only improve you skills. We are in the fortunate position of being in a career that requires continuous learning, so take as many opportunities to learn not just how to do your job with the greatest efficiency but perhaps to broaden your knowledge base in unrelated fields. My other bit of advice is that you need to find your community. You don’t need to make all the mistakes yourself, learn from others. There are many like-minded people out there that are willing to offer you support. Reach out, make that uncomfortable call or send that awkward email. It might just be this thing you need to find your champion. I am fortunate to have such champions in my corner. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Nandi for participating in this series and congratulations on your new role as Vice-Chair for the OBA WLF! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Jennifer Quaid, Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.   We are switching things up a bit today with the Women Leading in Law blog series and featuring Professor Jennifer Quaid, a lawyer who chose a rewarding career in academia (after some time with the Department of Justice and in private practice). For any lawyer or law student curious about a similar career, this is the post for you. While the whole post is filled with lots of great advice, what stood out for me was Prof. Quaid's observations about making mistakes in your legal career. I hope you find it useful too: 1. Tell me a little about your practice or business. I have the best job in the world! I am an Associate Professor and soon to be Vice-Dean Research (as of July 1, 2020) at the Civil Law Section of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. I teach an unusual combination of courses, but one that is tailor-made for me and the areas of law that interest me: general criminal law, corporate law and competition law. Some day, I would like to teach a seminar on selected topics in business accountability – I am working on my Dean! Aside from my teaching load, which is determined in large part by Faculty needs, I have the incredible privilege to pursue research in whatever subjects interest me. This freedom allows me to explore questions in depth but also affords me the opportunity to respond in real time to new issues as they emerge: some of you may know that I talk to journalists fairly frequently. This is the new reality of the modern academic: being able to provide insights in multiple forms to multiple audiences on very different timelines. It is very challenging but you can’t do one without the other – we need deep research on fundamental questions but we also need to keep our eyes on what is happening on the ground. This balancing act keeps me on my toes but is one of the aspects of my position that I appreciate the most. It is intensely satisfying to be able to contribute to public discourse and provide ideas for solutions to the problems that we face as a society. My core area of expertise is what most people call “corporate criminal liability” but the work I do straddles a number of overlapping areas that are linked by a common theme: when and how can law be used to stimulate good governance and ethical business practices, particularly in the prevention of serious harm flowing from the materialization of foreseeable operational risks. These risks tend to fall into two distinct categories: economic (like corruption, fraud and cartel activity) and safety/environmental (criminal negligence, regulatory). I study both types, which means I have written about the Lac-Mégantic derailment and about the SNC-Lavalin case. Many of my research projects are centred on developing effective sanctions and sentencing practice. My current focus is on anti-corruption measures and how to rescue the fledgling remediation agreement regime (Part XXII.1 CrC) which got off to such a rough start in 2018. I have just received funding for a 4-year empirical study that will compare non-trial resolutions in Canada, France and Switzerland. I am very fortunate to have been able to form a network of 4 colleagues (2 French, 2 Swiss – all women!) associated with 3 research institutes to support the project. Their collaboration is crucial since a big part of the study will be talking to those involved in anti-corruption enforcement on the ground in each country: investigators, police, prosecutors, judges and defense counsel. Empirical studies like these are still rare and depend on developing and maintaining good relationships with stakeholders. As someone who has practised in government and the private sector before joining the academy and who continues to engage with the profession, this plays to my strengths. I am very much looking forward to getting started! Outside my formal research projects, I also volunteer my time to the Legal Committee of Transparency International Canada, an NGO which advocates for robust anti-corruption measures in Canada and works to greater public awareness of the costs of corruption worldwide. Being part of the Committee gives me the chance to work with a fantastic group of lawyers from different sectors who are committed to the mission of TI Canada. The final part of a professor’s job is service and I will be doing a lot of that starting July 1st when I become Vice-Dean, Research. In that role, I will be responsible for supporting my colleagues and their research teams when they apply for grants and other institutional support like infrastructure; the search for funding and resources is a fixture of the research world. I will also responsible for promoting and highlighting the research being done by our professors, graduate students and the many research centres and laboratories associated with the Faculty. At this level I expect to collaborate a lot with my counterpart in Common Law, Vice-Dean Research, Penelope Simons. She is an expert on business and human rights and she and I have plans to create a joint research hub focused on business accountability, ethical commercial practices and sustainable governance in order to leverage the incredible expertise we have at uOttawa Law in the fields related to this topical and important subject. More specifically on the Civil Law side, we spent the last year developing a strategic plan for the next 3-5 years in six key areas, including research. As incoming Vice-Dean, I have the honour of launching the first priority projects for the research sector: one is a new micro-program aimed at undergraduate students interested in research. The idea is to introduce students to the different kinds of research that can be done in law (interdisciplinary, empirical, quantitative, socio-legal, etc) as well as in other fields that are useful in studying legal issues. We also want them to have a chance to try their hand at an often under-studied aspect of the research process: knowledge mobilization; in other words, sharing what they discover in ways that people can understand and make use of it. I have two other major priorities for my term as Vice-Dean. The first is to continue the work of predecessors in working toward reconciliation with the First Peoples of Canada. This is a multi-pronged process that will take many years, but in my capacity as Vice-Dean Research, I would like to develop stronger relationships with First Nations researchers and communities, particularly those with which we already have active connections and those on whose unceded territory our Faculty is located. We already have many researchers who are working with First Nations partners and last year we were delighted to welcome on faculty Professor Eva Ottawa, an expert on aboriginal legal orders and a member of the atikamekw community. I would like to build on that base to weave First Nations perspectives into our thinking more broadly. I believe there is tremendous potential for change and new ideas if we are prepared to listen and learn about First Nations legal traditions and history. The other area of priority for me is to see a much greater embrace of multiple platforms to share our research and connect with people interested in knowing about the issues we are studying and what ideas we have to propose as solutions. This means expanding beyond speakers addressing audiences in conventional academic settings and changing things up both digitally (blogs, podcasts, webcasts and live chats) and in person. One idea we are keen to launch as soon as social distancing rules allow is the “university of the streets” model, where researchers go out into the community and chat with people in more informal settings, like cafés, galleries, community centres and other public spaces. 2. Why did you go to law school? When I first went to law school, I wanted to be a litigator, ideally in a big firm where I would be this alpha female partner breaking down all the sexist barriers that had plagued my mother’s generation. I also wanted to fight the good fight – the classic widow and orphan view of the lawyer as social justice crusader. But there were no lawyers in my family and I had no idea what the practice of law was really like. I found that out progressively and where I am today reflects my gradual realization of that my 20-year old’s ambition was not true to who I was as a person and as a lawyer nor was it aligned with my goals. Before studying law, I completed an undergrad degree in Economics at the University of Ottawa. But while I enjoyed taking a lot of different classes from art history to lettres françaises to math, this was always just a stepping-stone in my mind. Moreover, as I came to the University of Ottawa straight out of Secondary V in Quebec (I skipped CEGEP), I was still very young, only 20 when I graduated. As a native-born Montrealer with strong family ties to Europe, I grew up with an appreciation for the world beyond Canada’s borders and a sensitivity to the way language and culture shapes one’s perspective. Given this, I absolutely wanted to study both civil and common law and in both languages. At the time I applied to law school, there were only two schools that offered the National Program: McGill and the University of Ottawa. The National Program at Ottawa was designed as a 3+1 degree: 3 years in one program and 1 year in the “other” program. It was the Droit civil (Civil Law) Section that admitted me so that is where I started in September 1990. Many people do not realize that while our sister Faculty, the Common Law Section is bilingual and has both a French and English language program, Droit civil is taught exclusively in French. Since the University of Ottawa is a bilingual university, students may opt to write the papers and exams in either English or French, but I never availed myself of that option. I had already taken about half of my undergraduate classes in French and I decided that I wanted to prove I was able to do everything in French. Moreover, I found it much easier to take notes and read the source materials in French since the lectures and exam questions were in French too. This was one of the best decisions I ever made since it laid the foundation for a career in which I would move seamlessly between languages, cultures and legal systems. After three years immersed in French and in droit civil I spent a fascinating year learning the common law in English. At the time, the National Program was small (we were about 12) and so we were sprinkled among the first-year classes. We had a lot of fun though our classmates found that we asked strange and unexpected questions. In first-year contracts, taught by the wonderful Don McRae, we were mystified as why the standard approach was to teach remedies first. “But what’s the definition of a contract?” we kept asking, “we need to know that first!”. Don just smiled. The experience of engaging in comparative law directly like that was invaluable. It opened my eyes to the huge potential in looking at other approaches and in trying to understand where others are coming from. At the end of the day, all legal systems are designed to produce solutions to common human problems. Against that backdrop, cross-pollination of legal principles can provide helpful insights when looking at novel issues. I went to law school at the height of the national unity debates (remember the Meech Lake Accord? That fell apart as I started law school and then there was the Charlottetown Accord – I remember Bob Rae giving a passionate speech in favour at the Faculty, but to no avail). I spent many hours arguing and debating constitutional law and federalism with my civil law classmates, many of whom were indépendantistes, and always in French. I suppose that is where I perfected my legal French, though at the time I still had a slight European accent because I spent my summers working in Switzerland (my mum is from there). But there was always a point in the debate where my classmates would say “Oh, les anglophones …” and then I would say, “I am an anglo, you know.” And then they would say: “Oh, Jen, we don’t mean you. You’re not like them.” I took that as a compliment. We all wanted to be constitutional law experts in those days and find that dream job doing Charter analysis for just causes (most of us never managed it). 3. How did you get to where you are today? Design? Chance? Both? The short answer is both. The long answer could form the basis of a novel; here is the abridged version. My career is best described as a zig-zag across different practice areas, different employers and different parts of the world that ultimately brought me back to where it all started – Fauteux Hall. If you had told me in 1994 when I graduated from common law that I would be back 22 years later, I would have shuddered, and not in a good way. After I finished Droit civil, I summered at a big Montreal firm. I then returned the summer after to start my articling. I did one rotation in litigation but as I had a clerkship lined up with Frank Iacobucci at the Supreme Court of Canada, I did not remain at the firm for the duration of my articles and never returned. While at the Court I applied for scholarships to go to grad school and through a stroke of luck managed to secure two, but not for the same year. I went first to Cambridge in 1995-96 where I did an LLM. This was an amazing experience that I treated as my reward for working hard at law school. It was at Cambridge, in my Philosophy of Criminal Law seminar, that I first became seriously interested in corporate criminal liability, so much so I elected to write a thesis about it. I then went to Columbia Law School where I was an Associate-in-Law (a 2 year teaching fellowship) while pursuing a doctoral degree in comparative corporate criminal liability. It was as an Associate that I had my first experience teaching and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it (it was beginner’s luck I would find out in later years). I finished my time at Columbia in 1998 and received an LLM for my first doctoral paper. Though I had applied for a few academic jobs in Canada none worked out. I was secretly relieved because I wanted to practice and experience what I thought was “real life” outside the walls of the ivory tower. My experience as a practising lawyer was not typical for my era, where the gold standard was securing a place at a good law firm and remaining there forever. Nowadays, moving around from job to job and doing different types of work is far more common and is viewed in a more positive light than it was then. My first real law job was at the federal Department of Justice in a policy section called the Civil Code Section, which was tasked with the job of ensuring federal enactments reflected civil law principles in those areas where provincial law was incorporated into federal rules (such as bankruptcy). The position was not as stimulating as expected and so I looked around for other options and managed to get a secondment to the Competition Law Division. I had done some of my grad work in this area so was thrilled to go there. I was immediately assigned to a big merger review case. The Commissioner had decided to challenge the Superior Propane acquisition of ICG before the Competition Tribunal and they needed more lawyers to help. Eventually I secured a permanent position at the CLD. It was a busy time for deals in the late 1990s and I loved working on mergers. In those days the lawyers often accompanied the commerce officers investigating the cases (they don’t anymore) and I found the experience of meeting witnesses and stakeholders fascinating. The Propane case, heard in Calgary, was a long slog and it became quite adversarial in the courtroom but the Bureau team was fantastic and we all learned a ton. The Propane case was the first merger case to raise the issue of the efficiency defense squarely and I was teamed up with a commerce officer and an economist to work on developing a new interpretation of s. 96 of the Act. We even travelled to Washington to meet with senior FTC and DoJ officials – all of us were under 30 at the time and we marvelled at how seriously we were being taken. After about 2 years with the CLD, I asked my boss if I could take a one-year unpaid leave to go work in private practice. There was precedent for this – other young government lawyers had done it and private practice lawyers often came to the Bureau on exchange. I wanted the experience because after working on several merger files, I felt like I was at a disadvantage because I did not understand how the deals were put together. I wanted to see the other side, as it were. After weighing different options, I decided to join a prominent New York firm, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP in what they call their General Practice Group (in essence, corporate law). Though some had suggested I should join the Antitrust Group (a litigation group), I wanted the deal experience. Things did not go as planned, however. I arrived in January 2001 just as the tech boom started to crash; work dried up. Like many associates I had to take the assignments I was given. This is how I ended up doing securities work, something I never imagined doing. I am embarrassed to admit that back then I did not know the difference between the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In the slow summer of 2001, I attended an information session on the Asia-Pacific practice where I learned that S&C had an office in Melbourne. Not thinking, I ticked the box saying I might consider going there (I really wanted to go to the Paris office but there were no openings). Six weeks later, on September 10, 2001, I was offered a job there, which I accepted. That turned out to be prescient. I was glad to be able to leave my financial distinct apartment on the edge of Ground Zero at the end of 2001. But leaving for Melbourne also meant I was staying beyond my one-year leave from Justice and so I gave up my permanent job there. My experience in Melbourne was exhilarating and terrifying in equal measure. I arrived in January 2002 to a tiny, thinly-staffed office (2 partners, 1 special counsel, 3 associates –a very top-heavy ratio). They were working at full-tilt because S&C represented about 80% of the Australian public companies listed in the US. Aside from a female lawyer working part-time out of the Sydney satellite office (only 2 lawyers plus her), I was the only female lawyer in the group. Very quickly, I discovered I was out of my depth; I lacked adequate knowledge of securities laws and accounting rules and I had to catch up very quickly under very stressful conditions. Things got really crazy in July 2002 when the US Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The new enactment, intended to rein in accounting and reporting practices that had enabled companies like Enron to mislead investors, turned the US securities world upside down. The legislation required the SEC to enact dozens of regulations on short notice. The SEC began to systematically subject any company doing a deal to detailed review of all disclosure documents, something that slowed all transactions and injected a huge amount of uncertainty into the process. This was especially the case for foreign issuers because Congress had not considered the implications of some rules for non-US companies. One example: SOX banned executives and directors from doing business with the companies they worked for. There was an exemption for institutions regulated by the US Treasury (ie banks), but not foreign financial institutions. It took 18 months of lobbying and negotiation to get the SEC to issue a special regulation to allow qualifying foreign banks to get an exemption. Since we represented all 4 big banks in Australia, we spent a lot of time calming down angry executives who railed against the unfairness of the rules forcing them to switch their mortgages and bank accounts to their competitors. It was stressful to be working in such uncertain legal times and as the only female lawyer, I often felt isolated, though I did bond with the wonderful female support staff. Fortunately, I developed strong working relationships with clients, other counsel and advisors, many of them amazing woman lawyers and accountants with whom I am still touch today. I learned an incredible amount about teamwork, collaboration and compromise from them as we worked through novel, complex and challenging transactions. I returned to New York in the summer 2004, but by then I knew that my days at the firm were numbered; despite working brutal hours, I had not met expectations. To be fair, I also knew by then that I did not want to stay. I had to make a move. The question was where? My spouse had left a good job in Ottawa as a high-tech engineer to follow me to Australia and then to New York. He had worked for about 18 months in Australia but not at the same level. We decided we should go where he could get a job, especially as I was pregnant. We moved back to Ottawa in August 2005 once my 16-week mat leave/vacation time was over. I spent nearly 18 months with my infant son before returning to work. It was quite an adjustment being at home full-time without a business card. I loved the time with my child, but I felt unmoored and restless too. At the urging of the then Dean of Civil Law, Nathalie DesRosiers , I accepted a position as Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies at the Faculty of Law in August 2006. The job was mostly administrative and was never going to be a long-term position for me, but it gave me the chance to do thinking work while I had small children, which was incredibly important. Caring for babies and toddlers is physically and mentally draining and there were times when I thought I would not manage. But being back in a university environment got me thinking about becoming a professor. The challenge for me was that the world had changed since I was a 28-year old grad student applying for positions in the late 1990s. Securing a tenure-track position was going to take a substantial investment of time, money and family (especially spousal) moral support to build up a competitive file. And at the top of the list was getting a doctorate and scholarships as well as producing peer-review publications. The experience was not unlike getting back into a sport after a long hiatus. It was painful and exhausting to build up the skills, concentration and mental sharpness I used to take for granted. But I also found that once I got back into it, the joy of learning new things and having space to explore intriguing ideas kicked in and I knew I had made the right decision. I was hired by the Civil Law Section in 2013 and received tenure and promotion in 2019. I took a long time, but I have finally ended up in a job I love, working with people I respect and admire and making the kind of contributions that give me a deep sense of professional satisfaction. I would add that I would not be the professor I am without having gone down the windy path I followed. It is not a path I would necessarily recommend, but it forged in me a perspective on law that draws theory and practice together. 4. What is your most significant achievement? What are you proud of? When you have had a long career, there are many things that you remember and that make you proud. They are not all achievements in the traditional sense, however. As an educator, I am proud of my students, they have done amazing things with their legal education. Moreover, their energy and enthusiasm are inspiring and infectious. If I were to single out a traditional achievement it would be defending my doctoral dissertation and receiving my PhD from Queen’s (I dropped out of the Columbia program when I went into private practice). Unlike my previous degrees, which had come easily, it was a long and arduous process for me. When I started, I was working as an academic administrator and had two small children. Two weeks into the PhD program I discovered that I was expecting my third child, which complicated things a little! I was hired by the Civil Law Section when I was three years into what was supposed to be 3-year program; I thought at the time, I would be done in another year. Instead, I juggled family, developing and teaching new courses, writing papers and presenting at conferences, and the dissertation, for four more years. It was exhausting and many times, I thought I was going to have to give up. I felt like I was doing everything badly. This little voice in my head keep nagging at me: was I really up to the standard? Was I deluding myself that I could be a researcher at this level? What kept me going, I must confess, was the determination to show my children, especially my daughter, that through perseverance and hard work I could achieve this goal I had set for myself. Toward the end my stress over finishing kept me up at night. But then I submitted the final text and it was like this huge load was taken off my shoulders. The defense was actually fun because I knew my stuff and my examiners were great. And when convocation came around I will admit I was proud to wear my doctoral gown and Tudor cap. In my mind, receiving the degree was a pivotal moment. For the first time, I truly saw myself as a researcher, as someone who can make a contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the public interest. After so many years of uncertainty and doubt, I felt I had found my place and that I belonged. 5. What are some key challenges, and more importantly, opportunities for women in law? Sexism is still present in law, the legal profession and in our wider society. You will encounter it in some form or another. But the good news is that it is less and less likely that this sexism will prevent you from pursuing your goals. Don’t get me wrong: it may nevertheless interfere with specific plans, like working at a specific place or being appointed to a specific position, especially if you are subject to harassment or abuse, but these will be temporary setbacks at most. The wider arc of history is on your side. Moreover, the events of the past few weeks in reaction to the tragic death of George Floyd suggest that the tide is also turning – finally – on racism, particularly awareness of the systemic and structural factors that have entrenched it in our society. Be aware of imposter syndrome. We all get it, but especially women. It’s that thought that you don’t belong because you are not qualified enough, don’t have enough experience or simply don’t deserve to be there. Resist that nay-saying voice in your head. Don’t count yourself out before you take a serious look at the circumstances. Ask yourself, am I ready for this challenge, do I have the skills I need, if I don’t am I able to learn as I go? And always consider the opportunity cost of passing up the chance to do something that stretches you. Timing of opportunities is rarely perfect. If you can tolerate being uncomfortable and you trust your assessment of the value of taking on something new, then you should go for it. The greatest opportunities I see for women are in leadership positions. I am joining an executive team in Civil Law that is led by the accomplished and trailblazing Dean Marie-Ève Sylvestre and comprised entirely of women, save one. More and more institutions, public and private, are actively looking to recruit women to senior leadership positions. If that interests you, then seek out opportunities to gain experience and develop skills that you will need. And network, network, network. Increasingly there are strong networks of women like me, who you can draw on for support, advice and mentoring. And we want to help! Networks are how you make connections and become known. How you behave in these networks when you are new and relatively inexperienced will speak volumes to those who have been around for a while. A few tips: be polite, considerate and thankful. This does not mean being meek and mild, it means you acknowledge when others have spent their valuable time and effort on your behalf. My secret weapon is the thank you note – yes, a note, in writing. These days it may be impractical to send a handwritten note, though that is the gold standard in my view, but sending a thoughtful email message, written in full sentences, proof-read with a proper greeting and salutation, is an excellent habit to develop. I also encourage sending notes of congratulation for milestones, new positions, promotions, marriages, births or other accomplishments; you might also consider sending words of encouragement to those going through difficult times, like bereavement and job loss (This pandemic has underscored the importance of proactively staying in touch and reaching out). Doing this systematically means that you never appear opportunistic when you approach someone for help. You have a track record of communications that telegraphs your interest in and concern for others. 6. What advice would you give a woman starting her legal career? For most of us, starting something is exciting but also intimidating. We worry about not knowing enough or messing up or missing that one golden opportunity we believe will set us on the path to success and happiness. Actually the opposite is true. New grads know a lot, probably more than most practising lawyers. They are sharp and fresh and unafraid of trying new things. They believe in change and are generally unencumbered by the kind of resignation we tend to develop as we age, which causes us to abandon lofty goals, stick with what works or to be cynical. But knowledge is only one part of a lawyer’s job; experience is the element new grads lack. And, as much as we would like it to be otherwise, you do not gain experience – at least not useful experience - unless you push yourself a little, take risks and actually get your hands dirty. I don’t mean dirty in the sense of illegal or unethical, but I mean that you will make mistakes. Mistakes are the best teachers even if they may be awful to live through as they are happening; I say that from painful experience. You cannot expect to get through a 20-40 year career without a full range of mistakes, from small to very big. Though this may surprise you, they are probably not going to be legal mistakes of the kind that cause you to give incorrect legal advice. They are far more likely to be miscalculations of time or resources, misreading of clients’ expectations, mismanagement of people, or misjudging what you thought would give you professional and personal satisfaction. Making mistakes is inevitable and unavoidable. What matters is how you respond – this is how you mature as a lawyer and as a person. All too often women are discouraged from taking risks and told to fear making mistakes. Don’t fall into that trap. Volunteer for challenging assignments, seek out new opportunities, get out of your comfort zone, work with different people. Get line experience: experience in different departments and in different regions is a key asset if you are interested in leadership positions. Do not allow yourself to be siloed in a single unit or service. One caveat: there is sexism and a double-standard, still, in how women are evaluated and how serious their mistakes may be considered. Two pieces of advice: understand what is expected of you and make sure you state clearly what your level of experience is – if there is a serious mismatch, you want that to be known upfront. Second, seek out a mentor who can look out for you, provide advice and make sure you are not being set up to fail. Finally, there is not one path to success and happiness. This is especially important for women lawyers to remember. As I have said to many of my students, a career is a LONG time. Even if you do grad school or started law school later, or take ten years off to have kids, you are probably still looking at 20-25 years of time for your legal/professional career. Over that long a period expect your goals and priorities to change. This is not bad, or a sign of poor planning. It is a sign that you are evolving as a person and a professional and that you are listening to yourself. Do not let others tell you what is best for you or what you “should” do. By all means get advice, consult people, be informed. But at the end of the day, it is your life – and you are the one living it. One particularly important thing is to realize that it is possible to be “good” at something and to hate it. Sometimes we believe, with all our heart, that we should excel at something and we do not. This is not the end of the world, but a sign that you need to open your mind and think outside the box. It took me a long time to make peace with the fact that private practice was not a good fit for me and that it was not my fault, nor was it the fault of the firms I worked for. I had always associated academia with a closed community locked away from the hustle of real life. But when I sat down and was honest about I wanted to do, I realized that the university environment would provide me the space and the freedom to work the way I wanted. Don’t get me wrong – I do not work less hard or less hours, I probably work more. Academic life is stressful and constantly under-resourced. But the essential difference is that I love what I am doing and get great satisfaction from the trifecta of research, teaching and service. Figuring out what matters to you, what your passions are, how you want to contribute to society is critically important and only you can do it. But think of this evaluation of priorities as a map that allows you to travel rather than a set of directions leading to a single destination. Every now and then you might need to stop, reassess and change course. The reasons for this may come from you or they may come from external sources that are not within your control. Regardless, if you think of your professional journey in terms of what it brings you rather that where you are going you will be adaptable and flexible and open to new opportunities when they arise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Jennifer for this insightful and very informative post! I started this blog series because I was tired of hearing about women leaving law and wanted to hear about women leading in law. The "Women Leading in Law" series focuses on good news stories and highlights amazing women succeeding in the legal profession. Each post includes the profiled lawyer's answers to six questions. Prepare to be inspired! ICYMI - previous posts profiled the following amazing lawyers: Maryann Besharat, Cynthia Mason, Roots Gadhia, Evelyn Ackah, Carrisa Tanzola, Sarah Leamon, Robin Parker, Lorin MacDonald, Karen Yamamoto, Victoria Crewe-Nelson, Lynne Vicars, Kemi Oduwole, Anne-Marie McElroy, Jennifer Gold, Jordana Goldlist, Megan Keenberg, Yadesha Satheaswaran, France Mahon, Sarah Molyneaux, Richa Sandill, Vivene Salmon, Kim Whaley, Alisia Grenville, Frances Wood, Maggie Wente, Anita Szigeti, Neha Chugh, Christy Allen & Nancy Houle, Suzie Seo, Kim Gale, Alexi Wood, Melissa McBain, Erin Best, Gillian Hnatiw, Melanie Sharman Rowand, Meg Chinelo Egbunonu, Lisa Jean Helps, Nathalie Godbout Q.C., Laurie Livingstone, Renatta Austin, Janis Criger, May Cheng, Nicole Chrolavicius, Charlene Theodore, Dyanoosh Youssefi, Shannon Salter, Bindu Cudjoe, Elliot Spears, Jessica Prince, Anu K. Sandhu, Claire Hatcher, Esi Codjoe, Kate Dewhirst, Jennifer Taylor, Rebecca Durcan, Atrisha Lewis, Vandana Sood, Kathryn Manning, Kim Hawkins, Kyla Lee, and Eva Chan.  |
 
  Erin C. Cowling is a freelance lawyer, entrepreneur, legal career consultant researcher & writer, and President and Founder of Flex Legal Network Inc., a network of freelance lawyers.
Categories
All
Archives
March 2021
|
RSS Feed
|
(C) 2014-2020 Cowling Legal. All rights reserved.
|
Please note I do not represent clients of my own.
Information on this website does not constitute legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Accessing or using this website does not create a solicitor-client relationship. See website Terms of Use/Privacy Policy. info@cowlinglegal.com
3080 Yonge Street, Suite 6060 Toronto,ON M4N 3N1 (appointment only) 416.509.3655 |
|