Hi Everybody,
I have my LLB and now I am called for Bar in London. I was wondering if anyone have more info about practicing in Canada? (Edmonton City) Do I need to do Bar here in england or is it useless after paying fortune on it? if I do the course will they accept my qualification or I need to go for other training over there? Because I want to know if I have to do it again in Canada so I'll do only my LLM here. and other question is, does anyone know what LLM is more applicable in Canada? I can't decide between three of them that are: International Commercial law, Medical Law and Human Rights.

Thank you very much.

Practicing in Canada with a foreign law qualification is very difficult. I'm a Canadian student-at-law (pupillage as you call it) and I will be called to the bar in Ontario soon.

As a foreign law grad you must have your credentials assessed by the National Committee on Accreditation (NCA). In most instances you will have to complete 10-12 challenge exams (which will probably take you two years) or complete two years in a Canadian law school in order to receive a certificate of qualification.

Once you receive this, you are eligible to sit for the bar exams and apply for articles of clerkship (same as pupillage). This will take you another year to complete. Its harder to get called to the bar in Canada than England because you get called in England before you begin your practical training (which is nuts in my opinion).

Have you been called to the bar of England and Wales? As a barrister or solicitor? Have you completed BVC or LPC? Have you completed you pupillage or training contract? These are important qualifications. However, you are probably looking at an additional three years of schooling and training if you want to practice in Canada.

An LL.M. won't help you. It does not make you eligible to sit the bar here in Canada. An LL.M. is merely an academic qualification for those who want to specialize in an area of law or possibly go into academia. You may also want to try to improve your English because this can affect your job prospects.

I know this probably isn't the answer you were hoping for, but you need to know that if you choose to come to Canada you will need to travel a long path to become a lawyer. Having said that, it is certainly possible if you are willing to make the sacrifice.

Thank you very much for your comprehensive reply. I am going to start BVC on September 08. Do you mean even with completing this course I need to do another 3 years?

Assuming your LL.B. is from England, you should apparently still expect to spend one or two years at a Canadian law school:

http://www.flsc.ca/en/foreignLawyers/guidelines.asp

There are also a considerable number of substantive exams, as well; how many you have to write is based on a review of your education, grades and experience.

Also: I currently practice in Alberta, and can tell you that there are likely very few opportunities in Edmonton related specifically to international commercial law or human rights law. You might have a bit more luck with health law, though.

And everything Wade posted is entirely bang-on, and a far better description than you'll get from the Alberta Law Society!

Yes, even with BVC you will probably be looking at 3 years of school and training. Your qualifications are used to assess how many challenge exams or courses in a Canadian law school an NCA applicant/student needs to complete. The more qualifications you have, the less you will likely have to do (but it will still be a lot).

Just to give you an idea, in my law school we had students who were lawyers or judges from all over the world (Brasil, Sudan, Iran). We also had some students with English LL.B.'s under their belt. Most of them had to start in the second year of law school and most of these people were practicing lawyers and judges!

An English LL.B. by itself won't count for much because its a straight undergrad degree. Although having common law knowledge will be helpful in terms of success as a student, it won't be given much weight by the NCA. You don't even have any practical training under your belt yet.

If you were to get fully qualified in England (LL.B.+ BVC+ pupillage + a couple of years of practice) then the NCA would likely give you a shorter path (usually one year of law school or fewer challenge exams and some of your articling requirement could be waived).

However, even if you get this far, the minimum time would still probaly be 1.5 -2 years before you are called to the bar in Canada. However, on the plus side, you would have qualifications as a barrister in two countries and that could be very marketable and serve you well in terms of employment.

Unfortunately, most are looking for a quick and easy path but its just not going to happen. If possible, I recommend that you finish what you started and get called in England and complete your pupillage first. Then you can put in the time in Canada and get called here. You are hardly the first to do it.

If you were to leave now and come to Canada some employers may wonder why you quit the English bar qualification process. It might not look good. Just out of curiosity, do you have a specific reason for coming to Canada (i.e. family)?

Someone recently told me that if you sit the New York bar, this exempts you from the NCA program.

Does anyone know if this is true

This statement is false. I know several people who are NY Bar qualified. The same NCA assessment applies. It may result in fewer challenge exams, but not by much. If you get a few years experience in NY as a lawyer post NY call, then you will have fewer exams and part of your articling requirement may be waived.

I can tell you this, even with that type of experience, lawyers from the US almost always have to write at least 5-6 challenge exams (or 1 year of law school) and article in Ontario for at least 4 months (I'm not sure about other provinces).

This makes sense since you have some knowledge or exposure to Canadian and Ontario (or whatever province) law. This is designed for protection of the public. After all, constitutional and various statute provisions between Canada and NY may have many similarities but they have many differences as well.

Thank you for the response. There is so many websites with information regarding NCA requirements and it is hard to decide what is true and what is not true. A lawyer from Alberta told me that if you take the LLM or PHD this suffices NCA requirements. I have since found out this is not true.

As you seem knowledgeable regarding NCA requirements, do you know if anyone has ever appealed the NCA evaluation process and if so what the outcome was? Or would this be another pointless exercise. I have been reading a few legal websites and it seems that there is no precise evaluation process as applicants with the same education and experience seem to be required to sit a different number of examinations.

Any advise will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Can anyone tell me if there is an age requirement in Canada. For instance, is it harder to obtain employment in the legal profession once you are passed a certain age. In the UK a person obtaining a LLB and then completing the BVC or LPC in the 40's would struggle for a pupillage or training contract. Is it the same here????

Please advise,

Lesley

When I started articling, one of the other students I was articling with had just left a fifteen year career as an environmental engineer, and I've worked with another lawyer who only made the switch into law in her mid-40's. So it certainly isn't an absolute bar!

At any rate, the average starting age for a law student in Canada ranges from 24 to 26, depending on the school, since most applicants have a four year undergraduate degree beforehand. So the average age for a new lawyer in Canada is between 28 and 30, which as I understand it is considerably older than in the U.K.

There are some individuals that have a career change and complete the BVC in the 40's. Hoever, I am 42 and if it takes 3 yrs to complete the NCA requirements, then Bar school, then articling , I will more than likely hitting 46/47 and I do not know if that is going to cause problems for gaining employment.

You'll certainly be on the older side for articling in Canada, but I don't know why that should cause you any serious problems; I know at least two people in their mid-40's who were called to the bar last year.

As a worst-case scenario, I could imagine some of the larger firms passing you over, as they might not want a 55-year old junior partner 8 years down the line.

Also: what's your pre-law background? If you spent twenty years as a petrochemical engineer, for example, you'd have firms in Calgary fighting over you, precisely because of your age and experience.

Hi Maxine,

The NCA evaluates every applicant individually, hence the varying range of requirements. They look at qualifications and performance.

As far as I know, there has never been a successful challenge to the NCA (either the process or its assessment). Although some applicants have taken it to the courts they have always lost. I wouldn't waste my time trying to challenge the NCA or its assessment.

If you feel that they didn't give you proper credit then you can ask them to reassess by pointing out any experience you may have in your jurisdiction of call. However, most NCA applicants think that their degrees aren't given proper credit. However, the NCA is made up of professors and legal practioners with qualifications from all over the world. They know what your degree is worth and where it may be lacking in terms of necessary Canadian content.

However, it is the practical experience factor that is more important in my opinion. If you have 2-3 years of practice under your belt then the NCA will almost certainly give an applicant more credit. It means much more to practice in a common law jurisdiction than just study in one


One has to remember that although there is a bit of a money making aspect to the NCA, that is also true of the legal profession in general. Welcome to law! I mean the Law Society of Upper Canada charges its members every time they sneeze. You want a letter for anything or varification of your professional standing? You pay hundreds of dollars and that is on top of your membership dues and insurance.

Look at it this way, the NCA challenge exams are half the price of domestic tuition and a fraction of what international students pay for attending law school.

Its not an easy process for sure, but if you stick with it and get through it then you will be the better for it.

As you are knowledeable in this subject, is it true that the NCA evaluation is only done by the Executive Director and not the actual committee, unless an application is under appeal????

I was recently informed of this but I am not sure if it is true.

Also, from reading the caselaw on this subject, there have only been individuals that have challenged the NCA. Do you think if there was a class action or Judicial Review application resulting in more than one individual, then perhaps it is possible they may succeed???

Thanks in advance.

All NCA evaluations are done by the Committee. Vern Krishna does not have time to evaluate every application by himself. By the way, the University of Ottawa is my alma mater so I know this process well.

The NCA receives a couple of thousand applications per year.

As far as legal action is concerned, class action suits must be approved by the court before they can proceed. It is relatively rare for class action status to be granted in Canada. You don't hear about many of them.

I suspect you will never gain class action status. You also have to prove that you have suffered actual harm in any suit, NOT just inconvenience and that you mitigated your damages. Losing time doesn't usually count.

As for judicial review, the case law speaks for itself. You will likely lose any judicial review application. The standard will be correctness and thus, a lower threshold for the NCA. Numbers won't help you.

As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed since the other cases for judicial review were decided. The official NCA website is pretty clear about the process and provides some detailed examples.

While the process is long, I don't think any one group of NCA applicants is being treated unfairly compared to other NCA applicants. That is the main point you have to remember because that is how any court will look at things.

They simply will not consider any comparative analysis between NCA applicants and Canadian law grads. The primary concern is protection of the public and the courts will always side with caution.

Finally, I have been clerking abroad for the last six months at a war crimes tribunal and have met and befriended many lawyers from all over the world. In most jurisdictions, a foreign lawyer or law student could not even become qualified to practice or begin completing licencing requirements without becoming a citizen first (which takes years). The point being, that in most other jurisdictions would be looking at many many more years before you could practice, if at all.

At least in Canada, your citizenship doesn't matter and you will receive some credit (even if it is minimal) for your legal training regardless of where it took place.

By the way, England is looking to change its licencing process due to too many complaints from the public about the quality of legal training. Simply put, they want to become identical to Canada by delaying calls to the bar until after completing pupillage or a training contract. I always thought it was nuts that English students could be called to the bar before their practical training.

This also would include transfer applicants. If I wanted to transfer to England, I would have to pass a qualification test and complete a two year training contract or a year of pupillage in order to practice. Transferring to any jurisdiction is time consuming.

I know the NCA process is frustrating and cumbersome but you would be better off to dedicate yourself to completing the requirements and not give up. You will become a lawyer in Canada if you follow this path.

If you are looking for the courts to save you the trouble then I wouldn't count on them to help you out. Such a process would take almost as long and will cost you money as well (including potential costs at judgment).

Hi everyone,

Canada for me could be somehow becoming a light at the end of the tunnel, please correct me if I am wrong. Ive always considered looking to continue my legal education in the United States, get my LLM, sit for a bar, look for a good solid legal job and live happily ever after. Reality is that due to the economy conditions up there and a little opportunity for foreign trained attorneys/citizens, with a more welcoming attitude for foreigners, good income and what I assume is also first world living, Canada could be a great place to continue the adventure of legal practice.

However per whats been said in this section postings, unlike the US, chances for foreign trained attys to practice law within Canada in a short term are some how slim, even after holding an LLM under your belt which as I understood doesnt make much of a difference. According to the posted, a foreign attorney is not allowed to sit for a bar exam without going through certain exhaustive challenge tests and additional training which could take up to three years. If this is true, you think it could be better to aim for an LLB instead and eventually go out and sit for a bar as a domestic graduate would do? Is anybody aware of limitations to non nationals to attend law school and practice there after? In addition, as far as I am concerned Canadian immigration policies are friendlier than USAs, so I wonder if entering law school as a foreigner and graduate with a permanent residence visa would be a crazy a idea??

Regards from colorful Mexico!

B.A.

Hi B.A.:

As far as attending a Canadian law school, first, there is no citizenship pre-condition. Non-Canadians are welcome at Canadian law schools. Second, in respect of practicing, there seems to remain at least a citizenship or residency requirement (It has been discussed on these boards, and you may already have discovered it.), though I do not recall which it is. I believe the general consensus is that the requirement, whether citizenship or residency, is not enforced and is probably unconstitutional anyway. Perhaps one of our other participants here can provide you with a definite answer, which this is not. However, of course, you should contact a law society in Canada, e.g., The Law Society of Upper Canada, which is the governing body for Ontario.

Be aware that Canadian law school admission is incredibly competitive, however. There are approximately a dozen schools in Canada. Therefore, my only advice would be to research your entire path (as you are now doing) to ensure that it is a realistic option before you actually start the process.

[Edit: You should find some discussion of your questions here: http://www.llm-guide.com/board/21014/last/#post-21382.]

Hi - I plan on writing challenge exams in January 2009. Is there any one else out there who has to write the following subjects:
criminal law and procedure;
civil procedure;
evidence;
family law;
administrative law;
professional respopnsibility.
Any notes / outlines, tips or advice are welcome. are there any websites where I can get outlines or condensed noted, as i believe the exams are similar to those of the law faculty of University of Ottawa.
ps I have passed constitutional law and corporations already.

Hi all,
If I am admitted as a solicitor in England & Wales, does this make the Canadian conversion simpler?
Thanks

HI everybody,

I'm a US lawyer that is scheduled to take 7 NCA exams in January 2009. I'm trying to locate others that are also taking the exams in the near future, and if so, maybe we can share outlines and other exam resources.