Skip to content

Clinic’s unpaid articling job creates a stir

|Written By Yamri Taddese

A pro bono articling job posted for a Greater Toronto Area legal clinic has created a stir around unpaid legal work.

‘LAO should fund this position immediately,’ says Danny Kastner.

The job posting, posted on Legal Aid Ontario’s web site, says the Durham Community Legal Clinic is looking for a student for a 10-month unpaid gig.

In addition to assisting legal workers at the clinic, the student will also represent clients before tribunals and undertake legal case work in some areas of the law, according to the job posting. A suitable candidate would need to have a car, the advertisement noted.

Employment lawyer Danny Kastner of Turnpenney Milne LLP says unpaid articling defies common sense.

“Unpaid articling positions are lawful,” says Kastner.

“Articling students are exempted from the minimum wage protections in the Employment Standards Act. But as a matter of policy and common sense, law students who have broken the bank to complete their legal education shouldn’t have to submit to 10 months of unpaid work to become qualified.”

For its part, Legal Aid Ontario says clinics make their own hiring decisions.

“Durham Community Legal Clinic is, of course, one of the 76 legal clinics we fund,” says Genevieve Oger, a spokeswoman for LAO.

“You may also know they function independently and they’re responsible for their hiring and management decisions. They have their own boards of directors and these independent boards represent the communities they serve. The questions really need to be asked of the Durham legal clinic.”

Deborah Hastings, executive director of the Durham clinic, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Lenny Abramowicz, executive director of the Association of Community Legal Clinics of Ontario, says legal clinics do offer unpaid articles on occasion. Clinics’ preference would be to always pay articling students, says Abramowicz, but every year LAO funds just four to five articling jobs across the 74 organizations in Ontario.

“A clinic would get funding to retain an articling student usually once every 15 years,” says Abramowicz.

“We don’t have the funding for it. That’s our fundamental problem,” he says, adding that although clinics aren’t proud to offer unpaid articles, they’re not in the same category as for-profit private corporations that hire interns for no pay.

Kastner says legal clinics are “desperate to support the communities they serve” and notes “this is the result.”

To say hiring choices are entirely the responsibility of clinic boards is akin to “a parent not giving their child breakfast, then scolding the kid for falling asleep in class,” says Kastner.

“LAO should fund this position immediately.”

But according to Abramowicz, the problem is also about the crisis around articling and the lack of paid positions. He says he often gets calls from students who are unable to find paid positions and are willing to work for free.

“If the profession believes it’s important to have articles of clerkship, then there should be a fund created,” he says.

“I’m old enough to remember when I started paying my law society dues, there was a certain percentage of it that went to a legal aid levy. . . . Someone in their wisdom decided that wasn’t a good idea.”

  • James Holden
    Here is innovative idea. How about we simply stop expanding the number of law schools and law student spaces?
  • Horace Dorge
    For the voters who clicked the "No, it's wrong..." option, what would you suggest that law students (specifically, the ones who haven't been able to secure paid articles) do to get out of limbo?

    Are students (at least outside of Ontario, where articling remains the only game in town) just supposed to wait POSSIBLY INDEFINITELY in the hope that a paid articling position might someday open up, finally granting them the chance to work as a lawyer (and, for example, earn a living as a sole practitioner)?

    I find it very easy to say that "the position should be funded"... because that just raises the next question: FUNDED BY WHOM? By the organization that doesn't have any money? By the government that has to deal with widespread resistance to tax increases? By you, the already established lawyer(s)?... am I to understand that we all have thousands of dollars to spare that are otherwise just burning a hole in our pockets?

    What do you propose?
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Ontario’s recent provincial budget calls for changes in benefits for catastrophically injured patients, including a ‘return to the default benefit limit of $2 million for those who are catastrophically injured in an accident, after it was previously reduced to $1 million in 2016.’ Do you agree with this shift?