Transitioning Between Public and Private Practice: A Conversation

Andrea Bolieiro (Constitutional Law Branch, MAG Ontario) sits down with Daniel Baum of Langlois in Montréal and Ravi Amarnath of the Constitutional Law Branch, MAG Ontario, who have each worked in both public practice and private practice.

Daniel started his career at the Department of Justice before moving to private practice, while Ravi started his career at Blakes in Toronto before moving to MAG. Learn about why they made the move, how their lifestyles and careers changed with the transition, what they enjoy most about their current roles, and their advice on making the transition from public to private practice or vice versa. Views are the participants' own.

Daniel Baum is a partner in the litigation group at the Montréal office of Langlois Lawyers, LLP. A versatile litigator, Daniel acts in a wide array of commercial and public law disputes. He notably handles matters involving insolvency, commercial fraud, administrative law and regulatory compliance. Daniel has experience before all levels of Quebec and federal courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. He is also a sessional lecturer in written and oral advocacy at Université de Montréal’s Faculty of Law. Before joining Langlois, Daniel served as litigation counsel for the federal Crown.

Ravi Amarnath is counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General (Constitutional Law Branch). As counsel, Ravi has appeared before all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Before joining MAG, Ravi served as litigation counsel at Blakes LLP. Prior to commencing his practice, Ravi completed the BCL program at the University of Oxford and served as a law clerk at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. 

Land Acknowledgement
The Advocates’ Society acknowledges that our offices, located in Toronto, are on the customary and traditional lands of the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Haudenosaunee, the Anishinabek, the Huron-Wendat and now home to many First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.  We acknowledge current treaty holders, the Mississaugas of the Credit and honour their long history of welcoming many nations to this territory.

While The Advocates’ Society is based in Toronto, we are a national organization with Directors and members located across Canada in the treaty and traditional territories of many Indigenous Peoples. We encourage our members to reflect upon their relationships with the Indigenous Peoples in these territories, and the history of the land on which they live and work.

We acknowledge the devastating impacts of colonization, including the history of residential schools, for many Indigenous peoples, families, and communities and commit to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in an informed legal profession in Canada and within The Advocates’ Society.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:04

Welcome to Friends Who Argue a Podcast from The Advocate Society.

Speaker 2: 0:09

Each episode will bring you conversations with advocates across all areas of litigation who share their stories, insights, tips, and tricks from their journeys. As advocates,

Speaker 1: 0:20

We hope you'll find this podcast informative, inspiring, and most of all entertaining, and that you'll subscribe to our podcast on iTunes to stay up to date on the latest episodes.

Speaker 3: 0:38

Alright, joining us today are Ravi Amarna and Daniel Bum. Uh, we're talking today about, uh, transitioning between public and private practice. And our two guests here, uh, have done that transition, one into private practice and one into public practice. Um, so, uh, Ravi Amarna is council at the Constitutional Law Branch in the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. Prior to that, he worked as an associate at Blake's in Toronto, uh, doing civil litigation. Uh, he did his law degree at Dalhousie and clerked at the BC Court of Appeal, and he made the transition into public practice in December of 2017. Uh, Daniel Baum is a partner at Langua in Montreal. He was litigation council prior to that at Justice Canada. He, uh, received his law degree and master of laws at the University of Montreal, and he transitioned into private practice in 2014. So thank you both, uh, for joining me today. Uh, we're really excited to hear about your experiences.

Speaker 4: 1:43

Thanks for having us. Thanks, Andrea.

Speaker 3: 1:47

So I'm gonna start by asking you what motivated you to make the transition either to public or private practice? Uh, Danny, why don't you tell us about what motivated you?

Speaker 4: 1:58

Sure. So, uh, basically, I mean, it's, you know, it's really a question of preference. I mean, first thing I, I mean, having worked for, at Justice Canada for somewhere between three and four years, it, it was a, you know, a great experience, uh, early in my career. It was a great, uh, uh, school, uh, you know, practical experience, uh, we're, uh, abundant. I got to go to court a lot. So, uh, you know, I really, uh, have nothing negative to say in general about, uh, about public practice. You know, for, for, it was more of a question of personal preference for me. Um, and, um, you know, basically I was eager to, um, find the challenges, you know, the associated with private practice. So basically, you know, we have an increased, obviously, I increased diversity of clients, uh, and mandates being in private practice, you know, so we, you know, we had our, our clients at Justice as well, but obviously all of our clients are various departments and actors, uh, in government. Uh, whereas, uh, here, uh, in private practice, we get to, uh, have, uh, clients also, you know, from the public sector, but also from the private sector across all kinds of different industries. And, uh, you know, we have to deal with all the challenges that they th those various, uh, institutions and actors face. Um, also, uh, you know, I have a bit of an entrepreneurial spirit. So, you know, having, being able to help build, uh, a a law firm, uh, was, was always something that, that interested me personally. So, uh, obviously, you know, justice Canada is what it is, and there's no, there's not much, uh, room to, to, to move things in that way. Um, so, so, you know, tho those are the main reasons that I made the switch. I mean, there's less, you know, obviously there's, there, there, there is a question. Yeah, there, there is some bureaucracy working in a big public organization. Um, you know, some people are more patient with it than others. I'm, I, I'm not very patient when it comes to those kinds of things. So, you know, obviously here in the private sector, there's more flexibility, I think, uh, you know, and just how, what, getting things done doesn't require too many, filling out too many forms and, and, and, and all of that stuff. So, so that, that's basically what motivated me to make the switch.

Speaker 3: 4:09

Ravi, what about you? What motivated you to go into public practice?

Speaker 5: 4:14

So, I always had probably the biggest interest in law school in all the public law subjects. I was interested in constitutional law, public law, human rights law, and I just, I needed a job after at some point. So, uh, I was lucky to get on to Blake's. And when I was at Blake's, uh, you know, I enjoyed some of the work I was doing, but, uh, probably the work I was most interested in doing was the work I couldn't bill for. I was interested in like helping out with the Wilson moot. I was interested in, uh, the late Peter Hog was there at the time doing some projects with him. I was still, I was still really interested in sort of public law, constitutional law, and it seemed to me that I didn't really know how you could make a career out of it. There was the odd pro bono case here or there, but those were, I found them in a big firm, difficult to sort of be a part of beyond sort of a research type stage before it was sort of passed on to somebody else. So, uh, I had a colleague, uh, at Blake's who one day did the big firm thing of the door knock and saying, do you have a minute, which is often<laugh> code for, uh, someone telling you they're about to exit? And, uh, she told me, uh, yeah, I'm moving to the constitutional law branch. I said, whoa, that sounds pretty neat. What, what do they do there? And I said, well, they do all the constitutional non-criminal litigation for Ontario and do advice for, uh, you know, policy and legislation. And I said, wow, that sounds great. So I essentially started, uh, just kind of stayed in touch with her, and a couple, couple years later, there was an opening and I was able to get in. So haven't looked back, I guess, I guess it's actually four years tomorrow. Exactly.

Speaker 3: 6:06

That's right. TW 2017, full disclosure for everyone that Ravi and I work in the same office,<laugh>, and we started around the same time. Um, so once you guys made the transition, I'm interested in hearing about what you found to be the most difficult aspect about transitioning. Um, Ravi, why don't you start us off?

Speaker 5: 6:30

Uh, I mean, I think, uh, Daniel mentioned some of the aspects of, uh, bureaucracy that just aren't there in the private sector. So, uh, you know, and I'm still<laugh> adjusting to, uh, the review process of files, certain files, who has to see what and when, and how much, you know, let's say a factum is due on, uh, January 18th, or, you know, that's bad February 18th. You really have to do the math in your head for actually, you know, in the private sector, that means you, maybe you, you'll have it finished on the 16th, maybe have a review of it on the 17th and do a couple of drafts and it's done. Versus now you've gotta almost rewind the clock two weeks backwards or so many weeks backwards to try to figure out when you actually need to get it done, and how many people need to look at it to make sure it's fully approved before. Uh, and it also makes it difficult sometimes in court, or if you're on a case conference with someone trying to build a timeline in, people will say, well, why do you need so much time? And, you know, some judges will understand that and some won't. Uh, I guess you have to work with that. But I guess that took some getting used to. Uh, I recall when I<laugh>, I had a file, uh, luckily it was in, uh, POA court, so, uh, provincial offenses court, so of, of very little consequence in the end to the government. But I remember, I, I filed a fact without having, uh, seen our director, having<laugh> seen it. And my supervisor luckily just said, well, it's basically based off of precedent, so this shouldn't, should be okay. But, uh, I just, it just didn't occur to me. I thought we were sort of done. So that took some, uh, getting used to. And, and, uh, also just logistics with administrative tasks, which haven't been as relevant, uh, during this, uh, pandemic. But things like booking a car, booking a flight, booking a hotel, things that used to take very little energy can sometimes take lots of energy to do. Uh, so, you know, uh, none of those have, uh, dissuaded me from staying on my current job, but they are things that certainly, uh, are noticeable as differences.

Speaker 3: 8:52

What about you, Danny? What did you find the most difficult, uh, or most challenging thing when you transitioned?

Speaker 4: 8:59

Yeah, so, so there were for sure some adjustments to make, uh, back when I, I made the change. Uh, so, so first of all, I mean, being a justice, uh, at least early on, uh, we were in court or I was, you know, a lot, like sometimes I'd have, uh, court dates, uh, you know, three or sometimes four times a week, which I like personally. So, uh, you know, private practice, um, there's less of that and the types of matters that we, you know, handle. I mean, just because, I mean, well, a lot of things settle. You're, you're, you're more involved in the nitty gritty of discoveries and all that stuff, you know, which, which is, which is fun in its own right. But, uh, less court appearances. So that was a bit sad for me, I guess. Uh, that was one thing I missed also, um, once in a while. I mean, uh, you, you run into, uh, you know, with a, with a big variety of clients, some are more difficult than others. You have those issues, uh, you know, that, you know, whereas in the public sector, I mean, your client is always, uh, you know, relatively, uh, polite and, and well mannered and sophisticated, and, you know, you don't have to, you know, you, you, you're, so, it's a challenge that I enjoy dealing with different kinds of clients. But, you know, there's also the other side, which is, you know, sometimes you have to deal with, with, with difficult clients, you know, so, so, um, and, and I think that just overall, I mean, you know, it's, it's a, you know, in, in the private sector, it's a bit of a less formal environment overall, and that's, you know, that's for better and for worse. Um, so, you know, you have, it's a bit more, let's say, I don't know what words used, maybe raw, uh, people tend to be, you know, more, uh, direct and upfront with you. Uh, you know, I feel like in the public sector, uh, there's a, you know, there's a very, uh, uh, you know, polite culture. And so, uh, uh, it's, it's, it's an adjustment, you know? And, and it's for better and for worse also. So, um, you know, the, but otherwise, I mean, uh, the transition, you know, and obviously, you know, you, you, in terms of just the practice, practice itself, you know, whereas like I, uh, early in my career, for example, drafting fms, uh, and, and memos, you know, was happening on a regular basis, so I learned to do that faster than someone at my level, like, you know, a as I progressed, whereas there were other aspects that we deal with in private practice that I have done much less of in my first few years of practice. So there was a learning curve, a higher learning curve for, for certain elements, uh, and less so for others. So

Speaker 3: 11:27

I'm interested in what are the differences that you noticed in the way you conduct litigation, um, when you're in private practice versus public practice? Um, Danny, why don't you take this one on?

Speaker 4: 11:42

Sure. So, so yeah, I, I think Ravi first touched upon it, uh, also, so, so yes, there's a, there's the approvals process, uh, in the public sector, which could often be, uh, very, uh, long<laugh>, for lack of a better word, and, and, and complicated at times, uh, in that you have a lot of, you know, depending on what it is you're doing, and when, when you, if you have a file, uh, in the public sector of, of, of any kind of importance, um, you know, you're gonna have, uh, a whole group of people and well, groups of people in case in some cases, uh, looking, uh, at your work. Um, which in a way, you know, you know, first when you're getting started, I think it's actually, it could be an advantage as long as you're not too last minute, obviously, you know, like, because you, you know, you do get the benefit of having, uh, a lot of people give you their comments and, you know, you hopefully end up with a better work product here in the private sector. I mean, you know, yes. I mean, you, you still, you know, obviously, you know, your client has to be involved and, and, you know, and, and, and more senior counsel in certain cases, you know, but, but, but you're, there are less, uh, you know, boxes to check. Let's, let's kind of hoops to jump through before you actually are able to, you know, file a document, uh, or a pleading or a factum in court, especially in commercial civil litigation files. You know, there's more, there's more of a focus on, you know, I would say some like tactical advantages. Uh, you know, the, the notion of leverage comes into play a bit more. Um, you know, you know, here, obviously, you know, like we, we, we represent both defendants and plaintiffs, you know, whereas, you know, at Justice, I think it was, were almost always defendants, uh, with, with some few exceptions, you know, but, but, but so, so you, you know, you, you have to, you know, wear a different sort of hat, uh, in, in, in that regard. Um, and, uh, you know, like there, there's much more, you know, especially in commercial type disputes, you know, like there, there you have a lot more focus on, you know, achieving a favorable settlement, um, as opposed to, you know, in the public sector, I think, you know, one of your major concerns is, is, is the, is the precedential, you know, the precedent, right? And, and, and not, uh, you know, having, uh, you know, like, well, obviously, you know, every case is important, but you wanna make sure that you don't have cases that, you know, affect, uh, the way, uh, the government does business too much, uh, down the road. And, and, and so, so the considerations are sort of different in terms of, you know, how it is you make decisions, um, you know, for the benefit of your client, uh, in, in, in, in a litigation context. Ravi,

Speaker 3: 14:08

What about you? What were the major, or what are the major differences that you've seen, um, when you've moved to public practice, when you're conducting litigation? And maybe you could talk to us a little bit about the crown voice. What is this crown voice?

Speaker 5: 14:24

Yeah, the crown voice. I'm still discovering the crown voice, how you have to delve the blade a little bit in terms of how much you go at sort of, I find, uh, people in that, like, you're, you're advancing an argument, but you're trying not to make it too, too stinging. I'd say, especially a lot of times, uh, we'll get cases from people who represent while we have a legal disagreement, uh, very redeemable organizations or causes, uh, so there's a certain, I'd say, voice that you want to, uh, project in whereby you're, or even in oral argument whereby you're advancing the legal points to defend your case, but you're not necessarily, uh, going too much at somebody else versus, you know, in a commercial arbitration or where they're sort of company X versus company Y, and they're fighting over the rights to a telecom set of, it can be a lot more, uh, combative in terms of how much you're going at someone in a or whether or not that's actually necessary or actually persuasive. I'm not sure. Uh, but, uh, I found the sort of style of how I sort of frame effect and, and frame sort of oral argument is, uh, a a lot more toned back without necessarily not being, uh, you know, we're still advancing our argument. But I would say that's one thing that stuck out with me a lot.

Speaker 3: 15:56

I like that analogy of dulling the blade a little bit. Yeah. You're sort of not biting, uh, at the, your, your tone is not so biting. It's not so tactical. It's not so, um, personal that it, it, which it can get in, in, uh, cases between sort of private parties and it, it has to do with just the posture of the crown, and you're there on behalf of the whole government, right? Sometimes, and it's just, it's, it's a different tone. Um, so I think I, I agree with the way you've described it, and I, it also took some adjustment for me, um, uh, to kind of figure out what, what that means. And I'm still working on it as well. I think it's a thing we work keep working on in the public sector. What about like, tactical, um, tactical changes or tactical differences? I mean, things like, um, costs,

Speaker 5: 16:51

I think there's a number of cases I've been on where I think we would've been entitled to costs, but we didn't seek costs, uh, if nothing else, based on just the organization who was bringing forth a case, uh, or to short of signal to the court that were, you know, we're not looking to be punitive to the other side, per se. Uh, I can think of a recent case, it's multi-year litigation. There was many council who worked on a case, uh, the other side certainly sought, you know, well over a hundred thousand dollars in costs, and we didn't seek any costs, and I don't think if I was in private practice that would ever happen. Uh, so I think, oh, there's a lot of cases where we make the tactical decision that, okay, well, yes, technically loser pays, but, uh, we won't see costs just based on the nature of the organization and to signal to the court that we're, you know, we're in, in this for the, for, you know, upholding the validity of a policy or, or legislation not to necessarily sort of quote, win everything per se. And the last point was just kind of how Danny alluded to, uh, you know, when you're advancing an argument, you've gotta be very careful to make sure that you don't win this case at the expense of losing a bunch of other cases. So, uh, you wanna make sure very carefully, uh, and this goes into, you know, even the approval process and some of the benefits to the approval process and the eyeballs who are on a factum or, or advice that the arguments you advance don't contradict arguments you may wanna make down the road at related litigation or on other files. So

Speaker 3: 18:33

What are the kinds of forums that you find yourself in? Um, do you find yourself doing discoveries, trials? Do you find yourself doing other kinds of litigation? What's, what's the primary, um, the primary forum? Uh, Danny, why don't you start

Speaker 4: 18:49

Us off? Sure. Yeah. So, so I think that, um, on the private side, I would say that there are, there are more va in, in my case at least. I mean, there, there's, there's more varied, uh, places where litigation can be con conducted. I mean, so, you know, I, I I deal with, you know, arbitrations, um, various administrative tribunals and, and the courts as well. Um, so, um, there might be a bit more of a variety in that, in that regard. Um, you know, when on, on the justice side, however, um, you know, I was, I was at the federal, uh, doj, so, so I was in, we were in federal court a lot more often than I am in private practice, uh, even though I've still managed to, you know, once in a while end up there. But, uh, you know, so, so federal court, you know, and private practice is a bit of a, it's a bit of a mystery to most, most people on the private side. Um, so that's a difference. Um, uh, definitely, um, on the justice public side, there were more, uh, you know, it's just reviews, uh, administrative law questions, uh, were more common, uh, than in what I do now.

Speaker 3: 19:59

Robbie, what about you? What did you notice a difference in terms of the steps of litigation or the, the forms that you have been in?

Speaker 5: 20:08

Uh, I'd actually say the forms of increase quite a bit, just based on section 1 0 9 of the Court's Justice Act in Ontario, where we get notice of any n cq that's heard in any court or tribunal. So, um, you know, I've, I guess, been to a variety of tribunals, all the different levels of court. Um, we inter, um, you know, depending on the cases or time of year, we we'll intervene at Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. So I'd say compared to, uh, being at Blake's, there's a lot more variety of, uh, of forums we are in, just because we get all the nqs, and even if we can only do a fraction of them, there's still a lot of places we choose to insert ourselves, either as an intervener or as a generally as a respondent in a kind of a rule 14 application, but generally do a lot of applications, uh, not as many actions, some class action. We started getting some class action work, uh, though, um, in some ways assisting some of our colleagues, uh, in civil litigation, uh, crown Law, civil office. Um, I found out Blake's, there was a lot of commercial arbitration, uh, obviously for, uh, the interests of private parties, the commercial list, uh, which is in the Ontario Superior Court, uh, which a lot of that, but I didn't find as much, uh, appellate work, or unless you were in one of the specialized groups at Blake's, like the, there was sort of the environmental log group that was before the Environmental Review Tribunal a lot. Um, I found the sort of forums were more sort of commercial list or, um, a commercial arbitration.

Speaker 3: 21:57

So I wanna change, uh, course a little bit. We talked a lot about litigation. I kind of wanna talk about lifestyle, you know, how has this transition changed your day-to-day practice in life? Um, whether that's work-life balance or, you know, the things you spend your time on. Um, Danny, why don't you take this one to

Speaker 4: 22:20

Start? Sure. So, uh, I would say that, uh, in the private sector, I would say that you're, you're, there's different concerns you have. So in terms of like my work, work-life balance and workload, I think, I think things are less, a bit less predictable, uh, on the private sector side in terms of scheduling and whatnot. Um, and I think that, you know, largely that becomes from the fact that, you know, you have, you know, a multitude of clients that are served by the firm and you know, and, and yourself. And so you, you never know really when that client is gonna call you, when that client's gonna have an issue to deal with. And so, uh, you know, when, or if a new litigation gets started or, or dispute, you know, you, you can't really control that. Whereas I think, you know, in the public sector side, it was more str, um, streamlined and, and like the fi you know, when a matter would come in, uh, there was a, there were, you know, managers and administrative side people who would try to assign files based on people's various availabilities and workloads. So you would, you would have more, I would say, choice in that sense and on the, in the public sector as to when you take something on. Whereas, you know, in the private sector, if a client calls you with a, with a big awesome file, uh, even if it's, you know, if it's December 24th, you're, you're probably still gonna take the call because, uh, you're, you know, you, you, you know, obviously, um, you know, there's obviously the, the, the, I guess you could say the pressure of, of, you know, you have to make money<laugh> at some point. So, um, there's that. Um, so also, you know, like, and, and going back to that, I mean, of course, you, you know, you need to eventually, um, on, you know, in the private sector build, you know, business development becomes, uh, an issue. Uh, and, uh, whereas on the public sector side, uh, it just, I think it simply isn't, uh, I, you know, so, you know, not only do you have to, um, focus on the actual work itself, but you have, you know, you have to try to, uh, you know, make yourself get out, you know, get out there, develop content, uh, participate in podcasts, uh, you know, all all those kinds of things. Uh, so, so that, that's a change in, in, in lifestyle, uh, as well. So, uh, I mean, obviously, you know, like I think these all come from the nature of the two beasts and, you know, you, you know, of course, you know, you know, having to, uh, you know, spend time with clients and, uh, nurture those relationships, uh, obviously, uh, you know, takes, takes a chunk out of your, your schedule as well.

Speaker 5: 24:42

So you want to done this podcast, you're still a justice

Speaker 4: 24:45

<laugh>, definitely not<laugh>. That's, no, just, that's a, I can't, I can't, of course I would

Speaker 3: 24:51

<laugh>. Uh, Ravi, what about you? Do you agree? Do you, do you find that your, um, like what kind of things do you spend your time on and what, what is your work-life balance look like compared to when you were in private practice?

Speaker 5: 25:08

Uh, I sort of agree. Uh, I think, um, and particularly during the covid period i, I, or pandemic, which is now a fairly lengthy period<laugh>, I, I wouldn't say the work-life balance is really, in terms of how much time I spent thinking or doing work has changed very much. Uh, there always seems to be new advice, new litigation coming in, new rules which prompts new urgent litigation or threatened injunctions or, or whatnot. So, uh, in that sense, I, I wouldn't say it's, um, it's been that different, there's probably less work for the sake of keeping target, like, you know, that hovering sort of, I need to get to 2000 hours, or I need to get to x amount of hours, so I'm just gonna take on a dock review assignment, which is more of a big firm type and especially more of a junior big firm type, uh, concern. I, I find there's a lot less of that, uh, idea. And it's interesting, I I, I, I'm gonna change what I had originally thought. You know, I originally said, well, there's less sort of schmoozing in terms of client dinners and going to basketball games and all that stuff. Uh, but there is a certain level of, uh, necessity of knowing people in different ministries, uh, cuz sometimes, you know, you're gonna be on file or there's gonna be urgent advice, and you need to be able to pick up phone, answer, get the answer in that sense, uh, going to events and going to conferences and or virtual, you know, panels and such is, is still important, but in a different way.

Speaker 3: 26:54

Makes a lot of sense. I agree with you about the work-life balance. I think that, um, whenever, when I told people I was moving into public practice, they were all like, that's great. You're gonna work nine to five, it's gonna be so great. And the reality is that I'm working just as much as I was in private practice, and I think a lot of people are surprised by that. Um, as you say, it might just be the times that we're in and, and that there's a lot of stuff going on that needs legal advice or litigation support. But, uh, definitely, I, I I can say with confidence, it's not, it's not less work, it's not less hours. Oh, I wanna ask you both what you like best about your new role and what you miss about your old role. And Ravi, why don't you start us off with that?

Speaker 5: 27:49

Uh, so for me, this one was probably the easiest question. You know, I really enjoy going to court. I enjoy arguing cases. I enjoy sort of the different forums we get in our job, which we're lucky enough to have. So, uh, you know, I certainly, uh, I certainly, that's something I, I really enjoy about this job and feel fortunate about. Uh, of course, you know, when you first joined the public sector, uh, you kind of forget like all these things that used to just get for free<laugh>. Like, I remember I went to a rapper's game and I was like, whoa, these tickets cost a lot of money.<laugh>, uh, back when I used to take cabs, there's no like, place you go upstairs to like get someone to give you a, I guess this is now a historic concept, but a, a taxi chip or, you know, these things, uh, they're all sort of out the window. So, um, you know, some of those like perks, I guess, uh, you would say, uh, initially I, I realized that, okay, well, I guess I, I like those more than I thought I did, but, uh, on balance, I, I wouldn't trade. They wouldn't trade the former for the latter for the former.

Speaker 3: 29:08

Danny, what about you? What do you like best about your new role in private practice and what do you miss about public practice?

Speaker 4: 29:14

So, uh, yeah, o o other than the expense account, obviously, which, uh, you know, Rav Rav touched upon? Uh, no, of course. Uh, more seriously. I, I, uh, so I think that what I like the most, you know, is it's, it's a general thing. I mean, I think that it's, it's, it is, it's a question of what types of challenges you want to face. I mean, it sounds a bit cheesy, but it's true. I mean, I think that, you know, you have, um, you like Ravi's, right? To say that I think that the major challenge you have, uh, on the public sector sector side in my view is just, you know, you have to do a great, you know, you have to do great work and, uh, be a great lawyer. Like, uh, you know, yes, there's internal networking as well and within various ministries, but I, i, I think that overall like the, you know, the private sector for me, uh, you know, it represents like intellectually, uh, you know, a, a different kind of challenge because, uh, you really kind of have to put yourself in the shoes of a really varied degree of clients. They could be individuals, they could be public, uh, bodies, they can be companies, and, you know, each of within all kinds of industries would have all kinds of concerns. And you, you really have to, um, you know, be attuned to, uh, the concerns of your client. And, and, and those are, you know, widely different in the private sector, which, you know, I find personally very interesting. Um, you know, and, and, uh, yeah, I mean, you have to kind of like, the idea, I think of, you know, being your own sort of small enterprise, you know, especially as you get on in your ears as I'm starting to, uh, on the private side. And so, you know, if you, you know, like, you know, developing, uh, clients, you know, and, and trying to, you know, make the firm more successful, uh, in general in every way, you know, and not just from a monetary point of view, but also, you know, you just help. You're able to help, you know, the firm change directions, build new policies, you know, and all of that stuff. So I, I, I enjoy that personally. Um, you know what I, you know, obviously what I, what I miss the most, I would say, you know, being in court more often, like I said earlier, is miss that. Um, also, you know, the, the, the, the ability to really, you know, on the justice public side, I mean, often you have like people who are really experts in, in, in, in certain fields, you know, like if you think about constitutional law or administrative law, you have people who are practicing in those fields for, you know, decades and you're able to, you know, benefit from real, you know, you get free, free expert advice, you know, on really, you know, pointed and interesting issues. So, uh, that's something that I know, I think, you know, I I I, I, I was an advantage and, and I enjoyed, you know, uh, from the, from the justice side, um, you know, the, the, the, the lack of, the pressure of the billable hour. I know that, you know, like there's still, you still have to log your time, I think, on, on, you know, in the, in the public sector. But, you know, that's something, just the actual act of logging your time is something that I personally find annoying and cumbersome, you know, I, and, and so just such, you know, and I mean, you still have to do it there, but I mean, just the pressure of having every, every single, uh, entry there and described in such detailed fashion, you know, I like, I think that that's something I, I, I, you know, I could, I could do without, and, you know, hopefully, uh, AI will like sometime at some point kick in and like could take that away from me. But, uh, uh, yeah. So I think that those are the, the major differences for me.

Speaker 3: 32:29

So I wanna end with, uh, advice that you might have. What's your one piece of advice you might have for anyone considering a move from public to private or private to public? Denny, why don't you start

Speaker 4: 32:44

Us off? Okay. So, so obviously I'll do from public to private, because that was my situation. Um, and, and look, I, I think that obviously, you know, on the private side, there's, there's a lot of variety as to who, uh, what, what your employer, uh, who your employer could be, whether it's in a firm or whether it's in-house, uh, at a, at a company, or something else. So, uh, you know, I think that if you're gonna make the move from Publix to private, you know, you wanna make sure that you know where you're going, uh, is actually where, you know, like, like fulfilling the goals that you're seeking to achieve, whatever those might be, right? So, um, in my case, you know, I felt lucky that, you know, I was able to, at the firm that I joined, and that I'm still with, you know, along the way, like, I, like, we still have a tradition of doing a lot of public law here as well. So I was able to have the mix, for example, which was important for me, uh, to do not only just purely commercial disputes, which I do as well, of course, but like, but I was able to continue and not just completely, you know, leave behind, uh, areas of law that, that still do interest me quite a lot, you know? So I think that, you know, just make sure your due, your due diligence, I would say, as to where it is. You're, you're, you're gonna end up and make sure that you know, the reason you're making that move, uh, doesn't get lost. And also, uh, you have to at some point remember that you don't have a pension plan anymore. Uh, so you have to start saving. So I, I just reminded myself of that a couple weeks ago for the first time. So we, we, that's another small piece of advice,<laugh>.

Speaker 3: 34:13

That's, that is good advice.<laugh> plan for your retirement.

Speaker 4: 34:16

Yeah.<laugh>,

Speaker 3: 34:18

Uh, Ravi, what about you? What's your, uh, piece of advice for anyone considering the move from private to public?

Speaker 5: 34:25

Well, we've moved on to general life advice now, it's good. Um, so I mean, somewhat facetious, we've, you know, we've talked a little bit about, you know, the perks of the private sector, the hours of the public sector, no billable, you know, targets, whatnot. But I would just say simply find the job you like. You know, don't, don't go to the public sector, you know, if you go just because you get a pension, uh, at some point, if you don't actually like the job, you're not gonna like it. Or if you go to the private sector because you know, you, uh, you know, get some more perks or whatnot, like at some point that's not gonna, you're not gonna last. So, you know, find the job you like and, and whatever job you like, you'll probably have to work a lot of hours at. So, but if you like it, it'll be enjoyable.

Speaker 3: 35:11

Well, thank you guys. Thank you so much for, uh, giving your time to us today. It's been great discussion. I think it'll be really helpful for anyone who's considering making a similar move, uh, to what you've done.

Speaker 6: 35:30

Thank you to Andrea Boero, Daniel Baum and Ravi Erna for sharing their experiences. Thank you to my co-editor, Ian Brennaman, our production leads, Kirsten Derhammer, Natalia Rodriguez and Zoe Oxo, and to the Advocate Society team for their support. This is Web High co-editor of Friends Who Argue Signing Off.

Speaker 1: 35:55

That's it for our show. We hope you enjoyed listening to this episode and that you'll tune in next time.

Speaker 2: 36:01

If you enjoyed this episode and want to stay up to date, please subscribe to our podcast on iTunes,

Speaker 1: 36:07

Friends Who Argue is brought to you by The Advocate Society, an association of advocates with over 6,000 members from all areas of practice across Canada. For more information about the Advocate Society, go to www.advocates.ca or follow us on Twitter at at advocates underscore s o c.

Speaker 2: 36:28

Until next time, we are friends who argue.