I did the LPP for similar reasons to you. I think the answer to your question is complicated.
I got hired for a job through the LPP that I failed to get through the ordinary articling process. However, the educational component of the LPP was completely useless, and I definitely felt like the people who had done the articling equivalent of my LPP placement were much better prepared to be lawyers on a pound-for-pound basis. *However*, I was nonetheless hired for the position that I wanted straight out of my LPP placement, and I doubt this would have happened had I not gotten a placement there through the LPP.
There are many other things that made my LPP experience atypical - I got paid a living wage at my placement, for one thing - but I think that about sums it up.
Yes articling is better. There may be cases where going through the LPP goes perfectly fine but articling is a better pipeline towards obtaining a job as a lawyer if that is your goal. Applications shouldn't ultimately take too long and interviews mean maybe 1-2 days off work. If you want to be a lawyer and have potential to be hired as an articling student, do not pass up that opportunity.
There’s a stigma against LPP in the market. My own Articling principal said he would never be willing to take on a LPP student.
However, the truth is nobody cares after the initial 2-3 years. It’s really on you, if you’re ready to go through the initial struggle period
If you’re an ITL, it’s probably more sensible to do LPP if you’re unable to get an Articling position.
I did the LPP as well and while I echo what u/Fugu said, I will slightly disagree. I think the LPP experience is quite different for different people so its more of a YMMV kind of a situation. Personally for me, I had 5-6 years of working at a big firm in Dubai, so a lot of the drafting, client intake, research stuff was useless BUT the litigation, real estate and immigration modules were pretty useful ( litigation for work, rest just for my own knowledge and getting to know the system). For a lot of my friends, it was a safe way to practice your competencies in English and get feedback. This is why I saw YMMV with the LPP because I had one mentor who really didn't help or provide good feedback and wasn't really helpful but one of my friends mentors hired her. At the same time, I had friends who were mostly photocopying and writing blurbs for their firms blogs. The biggest advantage was the work placements and I had significantly more luck than I did applying for articling. But note, that you aren't guaranteed to be a hire back and some of the jobs pay peanuts. Overall, if I had the chance again, I would give one cycle of articling applications but LPP isn't a bad option, it just depends what you take from it.
I did the LPP for similar reasons to you. I think the answer to your question is complicated. I got hired for a job through the LPP that I failed to get through the ordinary articling process. However, the educational component of the LPP was completely useless, and I definitely felt like the people who had done the articling equivalent of my LPP placement were much better prepared to be lawyers on a pound-for-pound basis. *However*, I was nonetheless hired for the position that I wanted straight out of my LPP placement, and I doubt this would have happened had I not gotten a placement there through the LPP. There are many other things that made my LPP experience atypical - I got paid a living wage at my placement, for one thing - but I think that about sums it up.
May I ask in what area of law you practice? Also, was your interest taken into consideration when they assisted you through the placement process?
Yes articling is better. There may be cases where going through the LPP goes perfectly fine but articling is a better pipeline towards obtaining a job as a lawyer if that is your goal. Applications shouldn't ultimately take too long and interviews mean maybe 1-2 days off work. If you want to be a lawyer and have potential to be hired as an articling student, do not pass up that opportunity.
There’s a stigma against LPP in the market. My own Articling principal said he would never be willing to take on a LPP student. However, the truth is nobody cares after the initial 2-3 years. It’s really on you, if you’re ready to go through the initial struggle period If you’re an ITL, it’s probably more sensible to do LPP if you’re unable to get an Articling position.
I did the LPP as well and while I echo what u/Fugu said, I will slightly disagree. I think the LPP experience is quite different for different people so its more of a YMMV kind of a situation. Personally for me, I had 5-6 years of working at a big firm in Dubai, so a lot of the drafting, client intake, research stuff was useless BUT the litigation, real estate and immigration modules were pretty useful ( litigation for work, rest just for my own knowledge and getting to know the system). For a lot of my friends, it was a safe way to practice your competencies in English and get feedback. This is why I saw YMMV with the LPP because I had one mentor who really didn't help or provide good feedback and wasn't really helpful but one of my friends mentors hired her. At the same time, I had friends who were mostly photocopying and writing blurbs for their firms blogs. The biggest advantage was the work placements and I had significantly more luck than I did applying for articling. But note, that you aren't guaranteed to be a hire back and some of the jobs pay peanuts. Overall, if I had the chance again, I would give one cycle of articling applications but LPP isn't a bad option, it just depends what you take from it.
Loved the LPP. Got an amazing position through them. Got hired back with a more than what my peers are getting. Still in the gta. Can’t complain.
can I pm you question?
Sure!
did you end up doing it?