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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
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.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 4
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.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 5
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.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 6
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 7
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 Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 8
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.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 9
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%
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 10
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 11
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
2. Please indicate your path of entry into the licensing process.
JD/LLB from a Canadian law school NCA Certificate of Qualification
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 12
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%
2a. From which law school did you graduate?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 13
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%
2b. In which country did you obtain your legal academic experience?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 14
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 15
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 16
7. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the number of hours worked.
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 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.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 17
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.
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 3.62, meaning there is a positive skew
to the responses – see Figure 14. 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 2.63 tells
us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 18
10. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the quality of your learning during
your articling placement.
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 3.52, meaning there is a positive skew
to the responses – see Figure 15. 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 2.52 tells
us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.
Figure 15. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Quality of Learning During Articling – Completed Articling
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 19
11. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the feedback received from your
Articling Principal during your articling placement.
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. 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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 20
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 21
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 22
16. With regard to your preparation to practice law, how valuable did you find your
articling experience?
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction based on an interval scale of 0 to 5 with the
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 23
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 (6-10 lawyers)
Law firm (11-25 lawyers)
Law firm (26-50 lawyers)
Law firm (51-100 lawyers)
Law firm (101-200 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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 24
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 25
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 26
Demographic Information
20. Please check any of the following characteristics to which you self-identify:
(Select all that apply)
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 27
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 28
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 29
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
22. What is the year of your birth?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 30
Currently Articling
2. Please indicate your path of entry into the licensing process.
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.
2a. From which law school did you graduate?
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%
JD/LLB from a Canadian law school NCA Certificate of Qualification
2. Please indicate your path of entry into the licensing process.
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 31
Figure 29. Graduates from Canadian Law Schools – Currently Articling
2b. In which country did you obtain your legal academic experience?
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%
2a. From which law school did you graduate?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 32
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 33
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.
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 3.00, meaning there is a positive skew
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 34
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.
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 3.20, meaning there is a positive skew
to the responses – see Figure 35. 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 2.20 tells
us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 35
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 36
9. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the work you performed during your
articling placement.
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 3.69, meaning there is a positive skew
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.
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 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
tells us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.
Figure 38. Mean Rating for Satisfaction with Quality of Learning During Articling – Currently Articling
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 37
11. Please rate your level of satisfaction with the feedback received from your
Articling Principal during your articling placement.
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. 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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 38
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 39
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.
(Select all that apply)
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 40
16. With regard to your preparation to practice law, how valuable do you find your
articling experience?
Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction based on an interval scale of 0 to 5 with the
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
tells us that there is a large amount of spread in the ratings.
Figure 43. Mean Rating for Value of Articling Experience – Currently Articling
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 41
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 (2-5 lawyers)
Law firm (6-10 lawyers)
Law firm (11-25 lawyers)
Law firm (26-50 lawyers)
Law firm (51-100 lawyers)
Law firm (101-200 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 is the setting of your articling placement?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 42
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 43
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?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 44
Demographic Information
20. Please check any of the following characteristics to which you self-identify:
(Select all that apply)
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 45
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
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 46
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.
21. What is your gender identity?
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
21. What is your gender identity?
Summary of Articling Experience Survey Results June 1, 2017
Research & Evaluation Consulting Inc. | www.rae-consult.com 47
22. What is the year of your birth?
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
22. What is the year of your birth?