Clerking and You

BY Jennifer Lau, Acting Director; Chiara Woods, Acting Associate Director; and Tracy Wachmann, Public Interest Coordinator

Clerking Information

Do You:

  • Enjoy the academic and intellectual aspects of law?
  • Have an interest in litigation and want to gain insight into judicial reasoning and decision making?
  • Enjoy legal research and legal discussion?
  • Have excellent legal research and writing skills?
  • Not mind having an extended articling period?

If so, you may want to consider applying for a judicial clerkship. Clerking is a unique opportunity to spend a year working “behind the scenes” in a Court. The chance to observe counsel and litigants of all stripes arguing their cases in court and assist judges as they craft their decisions is an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Clerks often maintain collegial relationships not only with their judges, but also with their fellow law clerks.

The duties of a law clerk vary from court to court and from judge to judge. Generally, however, law clerks are responsible for researching and writing preliminary memoranda (brief summaries of the cases coming before the court based on the written submissions of the parties), conducting post-hearing research, and editing judgments.

Law students usually apply for clerkships in their 2nd year, which commence after graduation.  If you are interested in applying for a Canadian Clerkship, note that application deadlines range from November to April.  Please see the Judicial Clerkships 2014-2015 handout on Symplicity which contains information about the application process, interview preparation, application deadlines, and names of former clerks. 

We welcome the opportunity to review your clerkship application materials. Students may book an appointment with a member of the CSO team on Symplicity.

Get in touch with Career Services.

All roads lead to Symplicity ( If you do not have a Symplicity login, email so that you can access our Document Library, review job postings, upload your resume, and make appointments with Jennifer Lau, Chiara Woods or Tracy Wachmann. We look forward to helping you with your job search!

Pet of the Month: Binky

Name: Binky “Pees in the House Plants” Cameron

Birthday: April 7, 2009

Zodiac Sign: Aries

Likes: Constitutional Law, highlighters, putting holes in lululemon pants, bringing half-dead birds home, Will Shaw

Dislikes: online readings, seminars, when her mommy goes on exchange, German Shepherds, the vet

Favourite Foods: Cat Chow, innocent baby animals, poinsettas

Why Binky was Nominated: Binky has been a solid study partner since I adopted her the week before writing the LSAT (NOTE: I do not recommend bringing home a new kitten the week before writing a test which will determine your destiny). Binky has made the move from Winnipeg, MB to Vancouver with me, and currently resides in Squamish while I finish my exchange semester in Australia. It has been difficult studying at Uni Melb without Binky here to walk all over my keyboard, steal erasers, drool on my study notes, and love me unconditionally despite my irrational stress freak outs and coming home rowdy from Bzzr Ups. Luckily, Binky is adept at Facebook, and regularly posts cute cat pictures on my wall.

If you would like to submit your pet to be featured as the Legal Eye‘s Pet of the Month please email Our resident Petspert, Alissa Perry, may choose your pet. Be sure to follow a similar format to this one and send in your cutest photos of your lil buddy. Thank you.

First Round of Guile Debate: Lawyers are Overpaid Scribes


The Guile debate tryouts happened on the 15th of November. It was a Thursday. There must have been about a dozen people trying out. Good for them. They all debated about whether lawyers are just overpaid scribes. Obviously they are.

What did we learn from the debaters? Well there were 6 debaters pro and 6 con. But the 4 who made the finals were all debaters pro. Maybe this tells us more about the judges than the resolution.

First debater con: Anthony Toljanich, (pronounced tall-an-itch, you’re welcome Tony). Best dick joke of the night, I give it a 15.

First debater pro: Zoe Si. You had to listen very carefully to Zoe, which I didn’t, but she said something about teabags. I don’t know what that means but people seemed to laugh. Orange Pekoe is my least favourite tea.

Second debater pro: Glenn Grande. Glenn told a story in rhyming slang involving his inability to bang.

Second debater con: Rares Crisan. What kind of a name is Rares? He must be a first year. The best and worst thing about his debate was that he rambled.

Third debater pro: yours truly. Probably the only presentation that had any basis in fact. Everyone knows that the only thing the law has going for it is that it’s a big secret.

Fourth debater pro: Chris Thompson. I had to take a leak during most of this. When I got back there was a Dmitry joke. Good for Dmitry.

Third debater con: Guy Riseborough. This guy made a good point, how can you be overpaid when your expenses exceed your pay? Answer: a tenth of an hour at a time.

Fifth debater pro: Patrick Walker. Based on his presentation, Patrick should probably be in prison. Good thing he’s in law school.

Fourth debater con: Martina Zanetti. Sassy, funny, stylish. A few more rugby jokes and she might have had a chance.

Fifth debater con: Wes Berger. Easily he was the most sincere debater. He gave an impassioned defence of the status quo.

Sixth debater pro: Will Shaw. Challenged the entire room to trial by combat. Was almost certainly pummeled after the show.

Sixth debater con: Diarmuid Wickham. Confused 1L thought he was at an LSLAP trial.

The finals will be at the end of January. The finalists are Will Shaw, Glenn Grande, Zoe Si, and last, least, and largely, Chris Thompson. Congratulations to them all. I hope they all have just the best time.

Get Yo’ Groove On – Movember Playlist


Us at the UBC Legal Eye strongly believe that every power-‘stache (and power-‘stache in the making) deserves a funky soundtrack. We also give “funky” a large and liberal interpretation which spans a multitude of genres from Phil collins circa 1985 to Fat Joe (before he started rapping about Instagramming attractive women). We hope you enjoy the first of many monthly playlists from UBC Legal Eye; and we hope this musical foray will serve as a reminder that even if Mo Money = Mo Problems, Mo Mo(ustache) just means you’re hot stuff.

Click here to listen: Get Yo’ Groove On – Movember Playlist