The Law Society of Upper Canada - lsodialogue.ca€¦ · The average time for survey completion for English was 10 minutes. The average time for survey completion time for French

Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com

The Law Society of Upper Canada

Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results

Professional Development and Competence Committee

Prepared by Dr. A. Sidiq Ali, CE

Senior Evaluation Consultant

01/06/2017

Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. 16-1375 Southdown Road, Suite 233

Mississauga, ON L5J 2Z1 905-916-0743 (Office)

647-618-0764 (Dr. Ali Direct)

Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com

Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. ii

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Organization of Results .................................................................................................................. 3

Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Population and Response Rate ....................................................................................................... 4

Survey Responses – English ............................................................................................................7

Summary of Comparison between Completed Articling and Currently Articling ...................... 8

Completed Articling ................................................................................................................... 11

Articling Placement Information .......................................................................................... 23

Demographic Information ..................................................................................................... 26

Currently Articling .................................................................................................................... 30

Articling Placement Information ........................................................................................... 41

Demographic Information ..................................................................................................... 44

Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017

Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com ii

List of Figures FIGURE 1. SURVEY RESPONSE STATISTICS – ENGLISH VERSION .......................................................... 4 FIGURE 2. SURVEY RESPONSE STATISTICS – FRENCH VERSION ........................................................... 5 FIGURE 3. SUMMARY OF KEY RESPONSE STATISTICS .............................................................................. 6 FIGURE 4. COMPLETED ARTICLING AND CALLED, COMPLETED AND NO CALL, AND CURRENTLY

ARTICLING ................................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 5. PATH OF ENTRY INTO LICENSING PROCESS – COMPLETED ARTICLING ........................ 11 FIGURE 6. GRADUATES FROM CANADIAN LAW SCHOOLS – COMPLETED ARTICLING ................... 12 FIGURE 7. COUNTRIES OF NCA CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION – COMPLETED ARTICLING .... 13 FIGURE 8. HIRED-BACK – COMPLETED ARTICLING ............................................................................... 14 FIGURE 9. ANNUAL SALARY AT ARTICLING PLACEMENT – COMPLETED ARTICLING .................... 14 FIGURE 10. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH PAY DURING ARTICLING – COMPLETED

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 15 FIGURE 11. HOURS PER WEEK WORKED DURING ARTICLING – COMPLETED ARTICLING ............ 15 FIGURE 12. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED DURING

ARTICLING – COMPLETED ARTICLING.............................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 13. PERCENTAGE OF WORK DURING PLACEMENT ENABLING LEGAL SKILL

DEVELOPMENT – COMPLETED ARTICLING ..................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 14. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH WORK PERFORMED DURING ARTICLING –

COMPLETED ARTICLING ....................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 15. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF LEARNING DURING

ARTICLING – COMPLETED ARTICLING.............................................................................................. 18 FIGURE 16. MEAN RATINGS FOR SATISFACTION WITH PRINCIPALS’ FEEDBACK – COMPLETED

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 17. COMMENTS OR CONDUCT FACED THAT WAS UNWELCOMED – COMPLETED

ARTICLING .............................................................................................................................................. 20 FIGURE 18. UNEQUAL OR DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT DUE TO PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS –

COMPLETED ARTICLING ...................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 19. AWARENESS AND USE OF RESOURCES DURING ARTICLING – COMPLETED

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 20. MEAN RATING FOR VALUE OF ARTICLING EXPERIENCE – COMPLETED ARTICLING

.................................................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 21. SETTING OF ARTICLING PLACEMENT – COMPLETED ARTICLING ................................. 23 FIGURE 22. AREAS OF PRACTICE DURING ARTICLING PLACEMENT – COMPLETED ARTICLING . 24 FIGURE 23. LOCATION OF ARTICLING PLACEMENT – COMPLETED ARTICLING .............................. 25 FIGURE 24. INDIGENOUS IDENTIFICATION – COMPLETED ARTICLING ............................................ 26 FIGURE 25. RACIALIZED IDENTIFICATION – COMPLETED ARTICLING .............................................. 27 FIGURE 26. RACIALIZED IDENTIFICATION – COMPLETED ARTICLING .............................................28 FIGURE 27. YEAR OF BIRTH – COMPLETED ARTICLING ........................................................................ 29 FIGURE 28. PATH OF ENTRY INTO LICENSING PROCESS – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ..................... 30 FIGURE 29. GRADUATES FROM CANADIAN LAW SCHOOLS – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ................. 31 FIGURE 30. COUNTRIES OF NCA CERTIFICATE OF QUALIFICATION – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .. 32 FIGURE 31. HIRED-BACK – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .............................................................................. 32 FIGURE 32. ANNUAL SALARY AT ARTICLING PLACEMENT – CURRENTLY ARTICLING................... 33 FIGURE 33. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH PAY DURING ARTICLING – CURRENTLY

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 33 FIGURE 34. HOURS PER WEEK WORKED DURING ARTICLING – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ........... 34


Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com iii

FIGURE 35. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED DURING

ARTICLING – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .............................................................................................. 34 FIGURE 36. PERCENTAGE OF WORK DURING PLACEMENT ENABLING LEGAL SKILL

DEVELOPMENT – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ...................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 37. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH WORK PERFORMED DURING ARTICLING –

CURRENTLY ARTICLING ....................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 38. MEAN RATING FOR SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF LEARNING DURING

ARTICLING – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .............................................................................................. 36 FIGURE 39. MEAN RATINGS FOR SATISFACTION WITH PRINCIPALS’ FEEDBACK – CURRENTLY

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 40. COMMENTS OR CONDUCT FACED THAT WAS UNWELCOMED – CURRENTLY

ARTICLING ...............................................................................................................................................38 FIGURE 41. UNEQUAL OR DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT DUE TO PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS –

CURRENTLY ARTICLING .......................................................................................................................38 FIGURE 42. AWARENESS AND USE OF RESOURCES DURING ARTICLING – CURRENTLY

ARTICLING ............................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 43. MEAN RATING FOR VALUE OF ARTICLING EXPERIENCE – CURRENTLY ARTICLING

................................................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 44. SETTING OF ARTICLING PLACEMENT – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ................................. 41 FIGURE 45. AREAS OF PRACTICE DURING ARTICLING PLACEMENT – CURRENTLY ARTICLING . 42 FIGURE 46. LOCATION OF ARTICLING PLACEMENT – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .............................. 43 FIGURE 47. INDIGENOUS IDENTIFICATION – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ............................................. 44 FIGURE 48. RACIALIZED IDENTIFICATION – CURRENTLY ARTICLING .............................................. 45 FIGURE 49. GENDER IDENTIFICATION – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ..................................................... 46 FIGURE 50. YEAR OF BIRTH – CURRENTLY ARTICLING ......................................................................... 47

Summary Of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017

Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 3

Background The Articling Experience Survey was aimed at lawyers who had completed their Articling in 2014-

2015, or 2015-2016, and those candidates currently in the Articling process in the 2016-2017

licensing year. The English version of the Articling Experience Survey was developed by Research

& Evaluation Consulting’s (RaECon) Managing Director, Dr. A. Sidiq Ali in conjunction with Law

Society of Upper Canada (LSUC, or the Society) staff from the Office of the Executive Director of

Professional Development and Competence. This English version of the Articling Experience

Survey was translated to French by Law Society (LSUC or, the Society) translation staff. An email

with hyperlinks to both the English and French versions of the survey, deployed on a secure web-

based platform, was sent to the identified respondent pool on May 3, 2017. The survey was closed

on May 24, 2017.

Organization of Results Some overall results are presented first; these are related to various response statistics. Then, the

results for the English responses of the survey are presented. All but 6 of the responses were in

English. The English responses are broken down by two sub-groups: (1) Completed Articling; and

(2) Currently Articling. This approach to analysis was taken for two inter-related reasons. First,

the respondents who had completed Articling are now lawyers working for at least a one year post

call. As practising lawyers, their perspectives will likely be different than those still in the licensing

process. Being successful graduates of the licensing process, and practitioners provides a different

lens into the licensing process, and this lens influenced a separate look at those who had

completed Articling. Second, the temporal proximity to the licensing process is different between

the two groups. This proximity is likely to have an influence on recollection of events, and again

warrants a separate look. A comparison of the two groups on some key, quantitative variables is

made, before a deeper look into the results for each group is described.

Summary Overall, the two groups (Completed and Current) are almost identical in terms of demographic

make-up and their general ratings of satisfaction with various aspects of their Articling

Experience; that is there no statistically significant differences between the groups on the

quantitative data, except for one. The Currently Articling group had a greater proportion of

respondents who received their LLB/JD from a Canadian law school than the Completed Articling

group.



Population and Response Rate

Figure 1. Survey Response Statistics – English version

The survey was sent to 5,242 people, including 3,396 lawyers who articled in the past 3 years and

1,847 licensing candidates who are currently articling. All qualitative data, including respondents'

quotes, have been removed for confidentiality reasons. Figure 1 above shows some response

statistics for the English version of the Articling Experience Survey. Figure 2 on the following

page shows some of the response statistics for the French version of the survey. Figure 3 also on

the following page summarizes the key response statistics for the survey overall.

The average time for survey completion for English was 10 minutes.

The average time for survey completion time for French was 11 minutes.

This time-completed metric from the survey platform is flawed, however, as it takes into account

survey drop-outs in the calculation of completion time.



Figure 2. Survey Response Statistics – French version

French Responses There were 9 starts, 6 completed responses and 1 partially completed response to the French

version of the survey. Some of the key information is presented below:

4 respondents were Currently Articling; 2 were Completed and awaiting call to the bar; and 1

was Completed Articling and already called to the bar

All were graduates of the University of Ottawa Law School, except one (University of

Moncton)

Five of the respondents identified themselves as “White” and two as “Black.”

Five of the respondents identified themselves as female and two as male.



The Total Response Rate for the survey was [(1465 English) + (6 French) = 1471]/5242 = 28.1%

as illustrated in Figure 3 below as Total for Completed/Targeted. Please note

Completed/Targeted cannot be calculated by language as we do not know the Targeted

breakdown by language.

Figure 3. Summary of Key Response Statistics

Even for a specific, targeted, and purposeful sample post-program for most of the respondents,

the overall response rate was fair. In total, about 81% of the people who viewed the survey started

it; 71% of the people who viewed the survey, completed it; and 87% of the people who started it,

completed it. These are very good indicators of survey engagement.

In sum, the data presented herein, however, cannot be considered reliable or

representative of the targeted population due to the low response rate. Generally, we

desire a higher response rate for this type of survey because the missing data (some 72% of the

targets) can be considered non-random1. These missing data introduce a possible response bias,

that is systematic error. In other words, there are some factors that influenced targets not to

respond. Those that did respond represent a small subset of the population that were motivated

to respond for quite possibly several reasons. The responses herein are biased by these factors.

Ideally, we would like to see a much higher response rate to insure the reliability of the responses2.

Still, the 1,471 responses are a source of information and insight that were not available prior, and

much can be learned from this source, as long as we are cognizant of the limitations of these data.

1 Altman, Douglas G., & Bland, J. Martin. (2007). Missing data. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 334(7590), 424-424.

doi:10.1136/bmj.38977.682025.2C 2 Sheehan, Kim Bartel. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 6(2). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html

86.9%

66.7%

86.8%

71.5%

15.0%

70.5%

82.3%

22.5%

81.1%

28.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

English French Total

Response Statistics

Completed / Started Completed / Viewed Started / Viewed Completed/Targeted

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue2/sheehan.html



Survey Responses – English

1. Please indicate if you have completed articling and have been called to the bar,

completed articling and have not been called to the bar, or if you are currently

articling?

Figure 4 below shows the different categories of responses to the survey. Just over half the

respondents (52%) had completed articling and had been called to the bar, while 7 % had

completed articling and had not been called to the bar, and the remaining 41% were currently

articling.

The report will then focus on presenting results by: (1) those respondents who completed articling,

regardless of whether they have been called to the bar or not, and then (2) those who are currently

articling.

Figure 4. Completed Articling and Called, Completed and No Call, and Currently Articling

52.0%

7.0%

41.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Completed articling and have beencalled to the bar

Completed articling and have notbeen called to the bar

Currently articling

1. Please indicate if you have completed articling and have been called to the bar, completed articling and have not been called to

the bar, or if you are currently articling?

Completed articling and have been called to the bar

Completed articling and have not been called to the bar

Currently articling



Summary of Comparison between Completed Articling and Currently

Articling

Key points of comparison between the Completed Articling and Currently Articling groups are

presented in Table 1 (following page). Summary independent-samples t-tests were conducted to

identify any statistically significant differences in the responses between the two groups.

Generally, the two groups’ responses on the variables presented are not statistically different,

except for the Path to Licensing. The Currently Articling group had a greater proportion obtaining

an LLB/JD from a Canadian law school compared to the Completed Articling group. The response

options were scored “1” for Canadian law school and “2” for NCA, resulting in an average score on

the item per group. This average score was statistically different as Completed Articling (M=1.21,

SD=0.41) was greater than Currently Articling (M=1.17, SD=0.38); t(1633)=2.02, ρ=0.044.

The Hired Back variable could not be compared for statistical significance because the response

scales were different, as the Currently Articling group had an “I don’t know” option.



Table 1: Summary Comparison of Completed Articling and Currently Articling on Selected

Data (% rounded)

Variables Completed Articling Currently Articling

Completed Articling

and Called

Completed Articling and Not Called

Total Respondents 52% 7% 41%

59% 41%

Demographics

Gender Identity

Female 57% 55%

Male 42% 44%

Transgender/Transsexual 1% 0%

Other 0% 1%

Other Demographic Information

Francophone 6% 7%

Indigenous 3% 3%

Racialized (excludes those who identified “White”) 39% 42%

Person with a Disability 5% 4%

LGBQTI 7% 5%

Do Not Identify with Any of These 17% 19%

Path of Entry*

LLB/JD in Canada (Schools with the most respondents) 79% 83%

1. University of Ottawa 21% 24%

2. Osgoode/York University 17% 19%

3. University of Windsor 13% 13%

4. Western University 12% 10%

5. University of Toronto 11% 9%

6. Queen’s University 9% 10%

NCA Certificate (Countries with the most respondents) 21% 17%

1. United Kingdom 55% 65%

2. United States 13% 12%

3. Australia 15% 9%

4. India 3% 6%

5. Pakistan 1% 2%

Hired Back

Yes 50% 37%

No 50% 33%

I don’t Know N/A 30%



Annual Salary at Articling Placement

> $60,000 33% 33%

$40-60,000 36% 40%

$20-$40,000 20% 17%

<$20,000 6% 5%

<$5,000 1% 2%

<$2,500 1% 0%

Nil 4% 3%

Satisfaction with Salary (0-5) 2.85 3.00

Hours Worked per Week

<35 hours 2% 1%

30-50 hours 60% 58%

>50 hours 38% 41%

Satisfaction with Hours Worked (0-5) 3.26 3.20

% of Work Enabling Legal Skill Development

<10% 2% 1%

10%-25% 4% 4%

25%-50% 14% 9%

50%-75% 29% 29%

>75% 37% 45%

100% 13% 11%

Satisfaction with Legal Skill Development (0-5 scale) 3.62 3.69

Satisfaction with Quality of Learning (0-5 scale) 3.52 3.72

Satisfaction with Principals' Feedback (0-5 scale)

Availability of Feedback 3.15 3.25

Timeliness of Feedback 3.04 3.11

Quality of Feedback 3.09 3.26

Average Rating for Principals' Feedback 3.10 3.21

Received Unwelcomed Comments/Conduct

Yes 21% 18%

No 79% 82%

Perceived Unequal/Differential Treatment

Yes 17% 16%

No 83% 84%

Value of Articling Experience (0-5) 3.59 3.71

*Statistically significant difference, ρ <.05



Completed Articling

2. Please indicate your path of entry into the licensing process.

Figure 5. Path of Entry into Licensing Process – Completed Articling

Figure 5 above shows us that almost four-fifths (79%) of the respondents who have completed

articling obtained a JD/LLB from a Canadian law school.

2a. From which law school did you graduate?

Figure 6 (next page) illustrates that of the four-fifths who obtained a JD/LLB from a Canadian

law school, the largest proportions of them graduated from the University of Ottawa (21%),

Osgoode Hall/York University (17%), the University of Windsor (13%), Western University (12%)

and University of Toronto (11%). Together these five law schools accounted for 74% of the

respondents who have completed articling. Canadian law schools with no graduates are omitted

from this graphic.

79.0%

21.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

JD/LLB from a Canadian law school NCA Certificate of Qualification





Figure 6. Graduates from Canadian Law Schools – Completed Articling

4.0%

6.0%

17.0%

9.0%

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

21.0%

1.0%

11.0%

2.0%

13.0%12.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%




2b. In which country did you obtain your legal academic experience?

Figure 7 below shows that of the 21% of respondents who completed articling who identified their

path of entry into the lawyer licensing process as “NCA Certificate of Qualification,” more than

half (55%) obtained their legal academic experience in the United Kingdom, 15% in Australia and

13% in the United States. Countries that were on the response options list that had no selection

are left out of this graphic. From “other” responses, Russia and the Ukraine were listed by 1%

each, and just under 2% listed multiple countries, such as “Ukraine and Canada,” and “China and

Canada.”

Figure 7. Countries of NCA Certificate of Qualification – Completed Articling

3. Were you hired back at your articling placement?

Figure 8 (following page) shows us that essentially 50% of those respondents who have completed

articling, were hired back for post-call work.

15.0%

1.0% 1.0% 1.0%3.0%

1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

55.0%

13.0%

4.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




Figure 8. Hired-back – Completed Articling

4. What was your annual salary at your articling placement?

Figure 9 below illustrates that over two-thirds (68%) of respondents declared an annual salary of

at least $40,000, while a total of 12% declared they earned less than $20,000 per year. The

greatest percentage of respondents (36%) reported an annual salary between $40,000 and

$60,000 at their articling placement.

Figure 9. Annual Salary at Articling Placement – Completed Articling

50.0% 50.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes No

3. Were you hired back at your articling placement?

32.0%

36.0%

19.0%

6.0%

1.0% 1.0%4.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Over $60,000 Between$40,000 and

$60,000

Between$20,000 and

$40,000

Less than$20,000

Less than$5,000

Less than$2,500

Nil

4. What was your annual salary at your articling placement?



5. Please rate your level of satisfaction with your pay.

Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction based on an interval scale of 0 to 5 with the

qualitative anchors “highly dissatisfied” for 0 and “highly satisfied” for 5, and a 2.5 representing

a middle-ground. Overall, the mean (average) rating was 2.85, meaning there is a slightly positive

skew to the responses – see Figure 10. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating of

2 or “dissatisfied” and 3 for “satisfied,” but closer to “satisfied.” A standard deviation of 1.85 tells

us that there is a fair amount of spread in the ratings.

Figure 10. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Pay During Articling – Completed Articling

6. For how many hours per week did you work at your articling placement?

Figure 11 below displays that almost all (98%) of respondents who have completed articling

worked 35 or more hours per week. Three-fifths (60%) of respondents reported working between

35 and 50 hours per week, while almost two-fifths (38%) declared they worked more than 50

hours per week while articling.

Figure 11. Hours per Week Worked During Articling – Completed Articling

2.0%

60.0%

38.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Less than 35 hours per week Between 35 and 50 hoursper week

More than 50 hours perweek

6. For how many hours per week did you work at your articling placement?



7. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the number of hours worked.



a middle-ground. Overall, the mean (average) rating was 3.26, meaning there is a positive skew

to the responses – see Figure 12. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating of 3 for

“satisfied,” and 5 for “highly satisfied” but closer to “satisfied.” A standard deviation of 2.26 tells

us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.

Figure 12. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Number of Hours Worked During Articling – Completed

Articling

Respondents were more satisfied with the number of hours they worked than with their pay.

8. What percentage of your work during the placement enabled you to further

develop your legal skills?

Figure 13 on the next page illustrates that almost four-fifths (79%) of respondents reported that

at least 50% of their work during the placement enabled them to further develop their legal skills.

Further, almost one in eight respondents (13%) indicated that 100% of their work at the placement

enabled them to further develop their legal skills.



Figure 13. Percentage of Work During Placement Enabling Legal Skill Development – Completed Articling

9. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the work you performed during your

articling placement.







Figure 14. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Work Performed During Articling – Completed Articling

2.0%4.0%

14.0%

29.0%

37.0%

13.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Less than 10% Between 10%and 25%

Between 25%and 50%

Between 50%and 75%

More than 75% 100%

8. What percentage of your work during the placement enabled you to further develop your legal skills?



10. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the quality of your learning during

your articling placement.







Figure 15. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Quality of Learning During Articling – Completed Articling



11. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the feedback received from your

Articling Principal during your articling placement.



a middle-ground. Three rating dimensions or categories were used: (a) Availability of feedback;

(b) Timeliness of feedback; and (c) Quality of feedback.

Overall, the mean (average) rating across the three categories was 3.10, meaning there is a positive

skew to the responses – see Figure 16 below. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the

rating of 3 for “satisfied,” and 5 for “highly satisfied” but closer to “satisfied.” An average standard

deviation of 2.10 tells us that there is a fair amount of spread in the ratings.

Further, the radar graph shows us there is almost equal ratings for each of the three categories.

Figure 16. Mean Ratings for Satisfaction with Principals’ Feedback – Completed Articling



12. At any time in your articling process, do you feel that you faced any comments

or conduct related to your age, ancestry, colour, race, citizenship, ethnic origin,

place of origin, creed, disability, family status, marital status, gender identity,

gender expression, sex and/or sexual orientation that was unwelcome?

Figure 17 below illustrates that just over one-fifth of respondents (21%) faced comments or

conduct related to personal characteristics that was unwelcomed.

Figure 17. Comments or Conduct Faced that was Unwelcomed – Completed Articling

13. At any time in your articling process, do you feel that you faced any unequal or

differential treatment related to your age, ancestry, colour, race, citizenship, ethnic

origin, place of origin, creed, disability, family status, marital status, gender

identity, gender expression, sex and/or sexual orientation?

Figure 18 below illustrates that just over one-sixth of respondents (17%) felt they received

different or unequal treatment related to their personal characteristics.

Figure 18. Unequal or Differential Treatment due to Personal Characteristics – Completed Articling

21.0%

79.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Question 12- Comments or Conduct Faced that was Unwelcomed

17.0%

83.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Question 13 – Unequal or Differential Treatment due to Personal Qualities



14. Please indicate the resources that you were aware of during your articling

placement. (Select all that apply)

15. Please indicate the resources that you used during your articling placement.

(Select all that apply)

Figure 19 below displays the percentage of respondents who selected they were aware of and/or

used any of the resources available to them during their articling placement. The Practice

Management Helpline was selected the most for awareness with almost one-quarter (23%) of the

respondents choosing this option, but only 7% declared using this resource. The Law Society’s

Articling Office was chosen the second-most for awareness with one-fifth (20%) of the responses,

but the most for use at almost one-fifth of respondents (18%). Less than one in ten respondents

(8%) were aware of the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel (DHC), and fewer than one-half

of one percent used this resource. Finally, one in five (20%) respondents declared I Was Not

Aware of These Resources During Articling, and more than seven out of ten respondents (72%)

reported I Did Not Use Any of These Resources During Articling.

Figure 19. Awareness and Use of Resources during Articling – Completed Articling

19.8%16.9%

11.4%

23.4%

8.3%

20.2%18.1%

2.3%0.8%

6.8%

0.4%

71.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Law Society'sArticling Office

Law Society'sMember Assistance

Program (MAP)

Law Society'sComplaints Services

Centre

PracticeManagement

Helpline

Discrimination andHarassment Counsel

(DHC)

I was not aware / Idid not use of any of

these resourcesduring articling

Awareness and Use of Resources during Articling

Aware Used



16. With regard to your preparation to practice law, how valuable did you find your

articling experience?


qualitative anchors “not valuable” for 0 and “highly valuable” for 5, and a 2.5 representing a

middle-ground. Overall, the mean (average) rating was 3.59, meaning there is a positive skew to

the responses – see Figure 20 below. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating of

3 for “valuable,” and 5 for “highly valuable” but closer to “valuable.” A standard deviation of 2.52

tells us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.

Figure 20. Mean Rating for Value of Articling Experience – Completed Articling



Articling Placement Information

17. What was the setting of your articling placement?

Figure 21 shows the largest proportion (17%) of respondents indicated they had their articling

placement in a law firm with 2-5 lawyers followed by government or public agency (13%) and then

sole practice and law firm with 11-25 lawyers at 12% each. None of the respondents had an NGO

or Education setting for their placement. “Other” responses were numerous and included several

responses for each of Court/Court clerk and In-House Practice.

Figure 21. Setting of Articling Placement – Completed Articling

12.0%

17.0%

9.0%

12.0%

7.0%

4.0%

4.0%

9.0%

4.0%

13.0%

0.0%

2.0%

3.0%

0.0%

1.0%

3.0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Sole practice

Law firm (2-5 lawyers)






Law firm (more than 200 lawyers)

In-house counsel for a private corporation

Government or public agency

Education

Crown’s office

Legal clinic

Non-governmental organization (NGO)

Tribunal

Other

17. What was the Setting of Your Articling Placement?



18. In what area(s) of law did you practice during your placement? (Select all that

apply)? – Note: Respondents were limited to 5 choices.

Figure 22 illustrates that Civil Litigation – Plaintiff (13%) and Civil Litigation – Defendant (11%)

were the two areas most selected by respondents, followed by Corporate Commercial Law (10%).

The areas of law selected least were Environmental Law, International Law, Poverty Law, Tax Law

and Workplace Safety and Insurance Law, each with just 1%; and Language Rights Law at less

than 1%. The “Other” category was sizable and included Municipal Law and Privacy Law in the

greatest numbers.

Figure 22. Areas of Practice During Articling Placement – Completed Articling

2.0%

2.0%

6.0%

2.0%

13.0%

11.0%

2.0%

10.0%

7.0%

7.0%

1.0%

6.0%

3.0%

2.0%

3.0%

1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

7.0%

2.0%

1.0%

6.0%

1.0%

3.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Aboriginal Law

ADR/Mediation

Administrative Law

Bankruptcy Law

Civil Litigation – Plaintiff

Civil Litigation – Defendant

Construction Law

Corporate Commercial Law

Criminal/Quasi Criminal Law

Employment/Labour Law

Environmental Law

Family Law/Matrimonial Law

Human Rights/Social Justice Law

Immigration Law

Intellectual Property Law

International Law

Language Rights Law

Poverty Law

Real Estate Law

Securities Law

Tax Law

Wills, Estates, Trusts Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Other

18. In What Areas of Law did You Practice During Your Placement?



19. Where was your articling placement located?

Figure 23 shows almost two-thirds (63%) of the articling placements were in the GTA, followed

by 15% in the East. The Northwest and the Northeast had the fewest placements with 1% each.

One-third of “Other” category included locations within the province of Quebec, with two

mentions of Nigeria.

Figure 23. Location of Articling Placement – Completed Articling

1.0%

1.0%

15.0%

2.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

63.0%

3.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Northwest, including Kenora (Kenora), Thunder Bay(Thunder Bay), Rainy River (Fort Frances).

Northeast, including Cochrane (Timmins), Algoma(Sault Ste. Marie), Sudbury (Sudbury), Temiskaming

(Haileybury), Nipissing (North Bay), Parry Sound(Parry Sound).

East, including Prescott/Russell(L'Orignal/Hawkesbury), Ottawa-Carleton (Ottawa),Renfrew (Pembroke), Stormont/Dundas/Glengarry(Cornwall), Lanark (Perth), Lennox & Addington…

Central East, including Muskoka (Bracebridge),Victoria & Haliburton (Lindsay), Simcoe (Barrie),Durham (Whitby), Peterborough (Peterborough),

Northumberland (Cobourg).

Central West, including Bruce (Walkerton), Grey(Owen Sound), Dufferin (Orangeville), Wellington

(Guelph), Peel (Brampton), Halton (Milton).

Central South, including Waterloo (Kitchener),Burlington/Hamilton (Hamilton), Lincoln/NiagaraNorth (St. Catharines), Welland (Welland), Brant

(Brantford), Norfolk (Simcoe), Haldimand (Cayuga).

Southwest, including Huron (Goderich), Perth(Stratford), Oxford (Woodstock), Middlesex

(London), Lambton (Sarnia), Elgin (St. Thomas), Kent(Chatham), Essex (Windsor).

Toronto (GTA)

Other

19. Where was Your Articling Placement Located?



Demographic Information

20. Please check any of the following characteristics to which you self-identify:


20a. Francophone. 56 respondents or 5.7% of the “Completed Articling” group identified as

Francophone.

20b. Indigenous. 32 respondents or 3.3% of the “Completed Articling” group identified as

Indigenous. The categories within Indigenous are shown below in Figure 24. 41% of those self-

declared as Indigenous identified as First Nations, 31% as Metis and 3% as Inuit. Of the 25% or 8

responses to the Other category, no specification was made.

Figure 24. Indigenous Identification – Completed Articling

41.0%

3.0%

31.0%

25.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

First Nations Inuit Métis Other

20b. Indigeneous



20c. Racialized3. 685 or almost 70% of the respondents that identified themselves as

“Completed Articling” responded to this question. The categories within Racialized are shown

below in Figure 25. Just over three-fifths (61%) of these respondents identified themselves as

White. The next most selected category was South Asian (11%), and Chinese (8%). The Other

category included “Jewish,” “Mixed,” “European,” and “Italian.”

Figure 25. Racialized Identification – Completed Articling

3 The Ontario Human Rights Commission notes that using the terminology racialized person or racialized group is more accurate than racial minority visible minority person of colour or non-White. Race is the socially constructed differences among people based on characteristics such as accent or manner of speech, name, clothing, diet, beliefs and practices, leisure preferences, places of origin and so forth. Racialization is the process by which societies construct races as real, different and unequal in ways that matter to economic, political and social life. See Ontario Human Rights Commission, Racial discrimination, race and racism, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-race-and-racism-fact-sheet

2.0%

5.0%

8.0%

2.0%

2.0%

11.0%

1.0%

3.0%

61.0%

5.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Arab

Black (e.g., African-Canadian, African, Caribbean)

Chinese

East-Asian (e.g., Japanese, Korean)

Latin American, Hispanic

South Asian (e.g., Indo-Canadian, Indian Subcontinent)

South-East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian, Thai,Filipino)

West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan)

White

Other, please specify:

20c. Racialized



20d. Person with a disability. 52 respondents or 5.3% of the “Completed Articling” group

selected this option.

20e. LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex). 67 respondents

or 6.8% of the “Completed Articling” group selected this option.

20f. I do not identify with any of these personal characteristics. 170 respondents or

17.3% of the “Completed Articling” group selected this option.

21. What is your gender identity?

Figure 26 below shows that 57% of the respondents identified as Female, 42% as Male, less than

one-half of a percent identified as Transgender/Transsexual, and slightly less than 1% identified

as Other.

Figure 26. Racialized Identification – Completed Articling

57.0%

42.0%

0.0% 1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Female Male Transgender/transsexual Other

21. What is your gender Indentity?



22. What is the year of your birth?

Figure 27 below shows us that the mode year of birth is 1989 (~28 years of age) and the mean sits

between 1987 and 1986 (~30 and ~31 years of age). The youngest respondents were born in 1992

(~25 years of age) and the oldest respondents were born in 1976 (~41 years of age).

Figure 27. Year of Birth – Completed Articling

20.0%

1.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

1977

1976

1975

1974

1973

1972

1971

1970

1969

1968

1967

1966

1965

1964

1963

1962

1961

1960

1959

1958

1957




Currently Articling


Figure 28. Path of Entry into Licensing Process – Currently Articling

Figure 28 above shows us that over four-fifths (83%) of the respondents currently in articling

obtained a JD/LLB from a Canadian law school.


Figure 29 on the following page illustrates that of the over four-fifths who obtained a JD/LLB

from a Canadian law school, the largest proportions of them graduated from the University of

Ottawa (24%), Osgoode Hall/York University (19%), the University of Windsor (13%) and

Western University and Queen’s University with 10% each. Together these five law schools

accounted for over three-quarters (76%) of the respondents currently articling. Canadian law

schools with no graduates are omitted from this graphic.

83.0%

17.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%





Figure 29. Graduates from Canadian Law Schools – Currently Articling


Figure 30 on the following page shows that of the 17% of respondents who are currently articling

who identified their path of entry into the lawyer licensing process as “NCA Certificate of

Qualification,” almost two-thirds (65%) obtained their legal academic experience in the United

Kingdom, 12% in the United States and 9% in Australia. Countries that were on the response

options list that had no selection are left out of this graphic. All two of the “Other” responses listed

Iran.

4.0%

1.0%

4.0%

19.0%

10.0%

1.0% 1.0%2.0%

1.0% 1.0%

24.0%

9.0%

1.0%

13.0%

10.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%




Figure 30. Countries of NCA Certificate of Qualification – Currently Articling

3. Will you be hired back at your articling placement?

Figure 31 below shows us that 37% of those respondents who are currently articling, will be hired

back for post-call work, while 33% will not and 30% do not know whether they will be hired back

or not.

Figure 31. Hired-back – Currently Articling

9.0%

1.0% 1.0% 2.0%6.0%

1.0% 2.0%

65.0%

12.0%

2.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Australia CaymanIslands

China Hong Kong India Nigeria Pakistan UnitedKingdom

UnitedStates

Other

2b.In which country did you obtain your legal academic experience?

37.0%

33.0%30.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Yes No I don't know

3. Will you be hired back at your articling placement?



4. What is your annual salary at your articling placement?

Figure 32 below illustrates that almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents declared an annual

salary of at least $40,000, while one in ten (10%) declared they earned less than $20,000 per

year. The greatest percentage of respondents (40%) reported an annual salary between $40,000

and $60,000 at their articling placement.

Figure 32. Annual Salary at Articling Placement – Currently Articling

5. Please rate your level of satisfaction with your pay.




to the responses – see Figure 33. Qualitatively, this average would be right on the 3 for “satisfied.”

A standard deviation of 2.00, however, tells us that there is a good amount of spread in the ratings.

Figure 33. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Pay During Articling – Currently Articling

33.0%

40.0%

17.0%

5.0%2.0%

0.0%3.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Over $60,000 Between$40,000 and

$60,000

Between$20,000 and

$40,000

Less than$20,000

Less than$5,000

Less than$2,500

Nil

4. What is your annual salary at your articling placement?



6. For how many hours per week do you work at your articling placement?

Figure 34 below displays that almost all (99%) of respondents who are currently articling work 35

or more hours per week. Almost three-fifths (58%) of respondents report working between 35 and

50 hours per week, while just over two-fifths (41%) declared they worked more than 50 hours per

week.

Figure 34. Hours per Week Worked During Articling – Currently Articling

7. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the number of hours worked.







Figure 35. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Number of Hours Worked During Articling – Currently

Articling

1.0%

58.0%

41.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Less than 35 hours per week Between 35 and 50 hoursper week

More than 50 hours perweek

6. For how many hours per week do you work at your articling placement?



8. What percentage of your work during the placement enabled you to further

develop your legal skills?

Figure 36 below illustrates that more than four-fifths (85%) of respondents reported that at least

50% of their work during the placement enabled them to further develop their legal skills. Further,

almost one in eight respondents (13%) indicated that 100% of their work at the placement enabled

them to further develop their legal skills.

Figure 36. Percentage of Work During Placement Enabling Legal Skill Development – Currently Articling

1.0%4.0%

9.0%

29.0%

45.0%

11.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Less than 10% Between 10%and 25%

Between 25%and 50%

Between 50%and 75%

More than 75% 100%

8. What percentage of your work during the placement enabled you to further develop your legal skills?



9. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the work you performed during your

articling placement.




to the responses – see Figure 37 (below). Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating

of 3 for “satisfied,” and 5 for “highly satisfied” but closer to “satisfied.” A standard deviation of

1.03 tells us that there is a relatively small amount of spread in the ratings.

Figure 37. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Work Performed During Articling – Currently Articling

10. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the quality of your learning during

your articling placement.



a middle-ground. Overall, the mean (average) rating was 3.72, meaning there is a positive skew to

the responses – see Figure 38 below. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating of 3

for “satisfied,” and 5 for “highly satisfied” but closer to “satisfied.” A standard deviation of 2.72


Figure 38. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Quality of Learning During Articling – Currently Articling



11. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the feedback received from your

Articling Principal during your articling placement.



a middle-ground. Three rating dimensions or categories were used: (a) Availability of feedback;

(b) Timeliness of feedback; and (c) Quality of feedback.

Overall, the mean (average) rating across the three categories was 3.21, meaning there is a positive

skew to the responses – see Figure 39 below. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the

rating of 3 for “satisfied,” and 5 for “highly satisfied” but closer to “satisfied.” An average standard

deviation of 2.21tells us that there is a fair amount of spread in the ratings.

Further, the radar graph on the next page shows us there is almost equal ratings for each of the

three categories.

Figure 39. Mean Ratings for Satisfaction with Principals’ Feedback – Currently Articling



12. At any time in your articling process, do you feel that you faced any comments

or conduct related to your age, ancestry, colour, race, citizenship, ethnic origin,

place of origin, creed, disability, family status, marital status, gender identity,

gender expression, sex and/or sexual orientation that was unwelcome?

Figure 40 below illustrates that just under one-fifth of respondents (18%) faced comments or

conduct related to personal characteristics that was unwelcomed.

Figure 40. Comments or Conduct Faced that was Unwelcomed – Currently Articling

13. At any time in your articling process, do you feel that you faced any unequal or

differential treatment related to your age, ancestry, colour, race, citizenship, ethnic

origin, place of origin, creed, disability, family status, marital status, gender

identity, gender expression, sex and/or sexual orientation?

Figure 41 below illustrates that just over one-sixth of respondents (16%) felt they received

different or unequal treatment related to their personal characteristics.

Figure 41. Unequal or Differential Treatment due to Personal Characteristics – Currently Articling

18.0%

82.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Question 12 – Comments or Conduct Faced that was Unwelcomed

16.0%

84.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No

Question 13 – Unequal or Differential Treatment due to Personal Qualities



14. Please indicate the resources that you are aware of. (Select all that apply)

15. Please indicate the resources that you used during your articling placement.


Figure 42 on the following page displays the percentage of respondents who selected they were

aware of and/or used any of the resources available to them during their articling placement. The

Practice Management Helpline was selected the most for awareness with over one-quarter (29%)

of the respondents choosing this option, but only 5% declared using this resource. The Law

Society’s Articling Office was chosen the second-most for awareness with one-fifth (20%) of the

responses, but the most for use at just over one-fifth of respondents (21%). Less than one in ten

respondents (8%) were aware of the Discrimination and Harassment Counsel (DHC), and fewer

than of one percent used this resource. Finally, just under one in six (17%) respondents declared

I Was Not Aware of These Resources During Articling, and seven out of ten respondents (70%)

reported I Did Not Use Any of These Resources During Articling.

Figure 42. Awareness and Use of Resources during Articling – Currently Articling

20.1%

10.7%13.8%

28.8%

10.0%

16.5%

21.0%

2.7%0.5%

5.3%

0.9%

69.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Law Society'sArticling Office

Law Society'sMember

AssistanceProgram (MAP)

Law Society'sComplaints

Services Centre

PracticeManagement

Helpline

Discriminationand HarassmentCounsel (DHC)

I am not aware /I did not use of

any of theseresources.

Awareness and Use of Resources during Articling

Aware Used



16. With regard to your preparation to practice law, how valuable do you find your

articling experience?


qualitative anchors “not valuable” for 0 and “highly valuable” for 5, and a 2.5 representing a

middle-ground. Overall, the mean (average) rating was 3.71, meaning there is a positive skew to

the responses – see Figure 43 below. Qualitatively, this average would fall between the rating of 3

for “valuable,” and 5 for “highly valuable” but closer to “valuable.” A standard deviation of 2.72


Figure 43. Mean Rating for Value of Articling Experience – Currently Articling



Articling Placement Information

17. What is the setting of your articling placement?

Figure 44 shows the largest proportion (18%) of respondents indicated they had their articling

placement in a law firm with 2-5 lawyers followed by law firm with 11-25 lawyers at 15% and

government or public agency (11%). None of the respondents had an NGO or Education setting

for their placement. “Other” responses were numerous and included several responses for

Court/Court clerk.

Figure 44. Setting of Articling Placement – Currently Articling

9.0%

18.0%

7.0%

15.0%

8.0%

5.0%

4.0%

9.0%

3.0%

11.0%

0.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0%

2.0%

5.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Sole practice







Law firm (more than 200 lawyers)

In-house counsel for a private corporation

Government or public agency

Education

Crown’s office

Legal clinic

Non-governmental organization (NGO)

Tribunal

Other

17. What is the setting of your articling placement?



18. In what area(s) of law are you practising during your placement? (Select all that

apply) – Note: Respondents were limited to 5 choices.

Figure 45 illustrates Corporate Commercial at 12% and Civil Litigation – Plaintiff and Civil

Litigation – Defendant (11% each) were the three areas most selected by respondents. The areas

of law selected least were Aboriginal Law, Environmental Law, International Law, Tax Law and

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law, each with just 1%; and Language Rights Law and Poverty

Law, at less than 1%. The “Other” category was sizable and included Municipal Law in the greatest

frequency.

Figure 45. Areas of Practice During Articling Placement – Currently Articling

1.0%

2.0%

6.0%

2.0%

11.0%

11.0%

2.0%

12.0%

6.0%

6.0%

1.0%

6.0%

3.0%

2.0%

3.0%

1.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

3.0%

2.0%

7.0%

2.0%

2.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Aboriginal Law

ADR/Mediation

Administrative Law

Bankruptcy Law

Civil Litigation – Plaintiff

Civil Litigation – Defendant

Construction Law

Corporate Commercial Law

Criminal/Quasi Criminal Law

Employment/Labour Law

Environmental Law

Family Law/Matrimonial Law

Human Rights/Social Justice Law

Immigration Law

Intellectual Property Law

International Law

Language Rights Law

Poverty Law

Real Estate Law

Securities Law

Tax Law

Wills, Estates, Trusts Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Other

18. In what area(s) of law are you practising during your placement?



19. Where is your articling placement located?

Almost two-thirds (64%) of the articling placements were in the GTA, followed by 16% in the East.

The Northwest with less than 1% and the Northeast with 2% had the fewest placements. Many of

“Other” category included locations already listed, such as “York Region” and “Markham” with

two within the province of Quebec, with two mentions of international jurisdictions (see Figure

46).

Figure 46. Location of Articling Placement – Currently Articling

0.0%

2.0%

16.0%

2.0%

3.0%

5.0%

4.0%

64.0%

3.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Northwest, including Kenora (Kenora), Thunder Bay(Thunder Bay), Rainy River (Fort Frances).

Northeast, including Cochrane (Timmins), Algoma (SaultSte. Marie), Sudbury (Sudbury), Temiskaming (Haileybury),

Nipissing (North Bay), Parry Sound (Parry Sound).

East, including Prescott/Russell (L'Orignal/Hawkesbury),Ottawa-Carleton (Ottawa), Renfrew (Pembroke),

Stormont/Dundas/Glengarry (Cornwall), Lanark (Perth),Lennox & Addington (Napanee), Frontenac (Kingston),

Leeds & Grenville (Brockville), Hastings (Bell

Central East, including Muskoka (Bracebridge), Victoria &Haliburton (Lindsay), Simcoe (Barrie), Durham (Whitby),

Peterborough (Peterborough), Northumberland (Cobourg).

Central West, including Bruce (Walkerton), Grey (OwenSound), Dufferin (Orangeville), Wellington (Guelph), Peel

(Brampton), Halton (Milton).

Central South, including Waterloo (Kitchener),Burlington/Hamilton (Hamilton), Lincoln/Niagara North (St.Catharines), Welland (Welland), Brant (Brantford), Norfolk

(Simcoe), Haldimand (Cayuga).

Southwest, including Huron (Goderich), Perth (Stratford),Oxford (Woodstock), Middlesex (London), Lambton(Sarnia), Elgin (St. Thomas), Kent (Chatham), Essex

(Windsor).

Toronto (GTA)

Other

19. Where is your articling placement located?



Demographic Information

20. Please check any of the following characteristics to which you self-identify:


20a. Francophone. 45 respondents or 6.6% of the “Currently Articling” group identified as

Francophone.

20b. Indigenous. 17 respondents or 2.5% of the “Currently Articling” group identified as

Indigenous. The categories within Indigenous are shown below in Figure 47. 29% of the self-

declared Indigenous group identified as First Nations, 29% as Metis and 6% as Inuit. Of the 35%

or 6 responses to the Other category, no specification was made.

Figure 47. Indigenous Identification – Currently Articling

29.0%

6.0%

29.0%

35.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

First Nations Inuit Métis Other

20b. Indigenous



20c. Racialized4. 471 or almost 70% of the respondents that identified themselves as “Currently

Articling” responded to this question. The categories within Racialized are shown below in Figure

48. Just under three-fifths (58%) of these respondents identified themselves as White. The next

most selected category was South Asian (12%), and Chinese (9%). The Other category included

“Jewish,” and “Mixed” in the greatest numbers. However, there were no comments made

regarding the question/category itself.

Figure 48. Racialized Identification – Currently Articling

4 The Ontario Human Rights Commission notes that using the terminology racialized person or racialized group is more accurate than racial minority visible minority person of colour or non-White. Race is the socially constructed differences among people based on characteristics such as accent or manner of speech, name, clothing, diet, beliefs and practices, leisure preferences, places of origin and so forth. Racialization is the process by which societies construct races as real, different and unequal in ways that matter to economic, political and social life. See Ontario Human Rights Commission, Racial discrimination, race and racism, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/racial-discrimination-race-and-racism-fact-sheet

1.0%

5.0%

9.0%

2.0%

2.0%

12.0%

1.0%

4.0%

58.0%

5.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Arab

Black (e.g., African-Canadian, African, Caribbean)

Chinese

East-Asian (e.g., Japanese, Korean)

Latin American, Hispanic

South Asian (e.g., Indo-Canadian, IndianSubcontinent)

South-East Asian (e.g., Vietnamese, Cambodian,Thai, Filipino)

West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan)

White

Other, please specify:

20c. Racialized



20d. Person with a disability. 27 respondents or 4.0% of the “Currently Articling” group

selected this option.

20e. LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex). 35 respondents

or 5.1% of the “Currently Articling” group selected this option.

20f. I do not identify with any of these personal characteristics. 126 respondents or

18.5% of the “Currently Articling” group selected this option.


Figure 49 below shows that 55% of the respondents identified as Female, 44% as Male, less than

one-half of a percent identified as Transgender/Transsexual, and slightly less than 1% identified

as Other.

Figure 49. Gender Identification – Currently Articling

55.0%

44.0%

0.0% 1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Female Male Transgender/transsexual Other





Figure 50 below shows us that the mode year of birth is 1990 (~27 years of age) and the mean sits

between 1988 and 1987 (~29 and ~30 years of age). The youngest respondents were born in 1993

(~24 years of age) and the oldest respondents were born in 1974 (~43 years of age).

Figure 50. Year of Birth – Currently Articling

24.0%

1.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

1982

1981

1980

1979

1978

1977

1976

1975

1974

1973

1972

1971

1970

1969

1968

1967

1966

1965

1964

1963

1962

1961

1960

1959

1958

1957


Documents

The Law Society of Upper Canada - lsodialogue.ca€¦ · The average time for survey completion for English was 10 minutes. The average time for survey completion time for French