<p>Okay... where do u speacilize in law from like various different lawyers. Divorce lawyer, attorney generals, criminal lawyers... do u know what kind of lawyer your going to be before during or after law school... im really confused???</p>
<p>Most people don't know what they're going to specialize in when they start law school, and you don't really need to specialize in much while you're in law school. (A lot of attorneys start out with no real specialization, and just move into different things.)</p>
<p>Also, most first-year courses are identical for all students, so you'll have a year (and a summer) to think about it. </p>
<p>If you decide you want to be a litigator during law school, then you should take classes like evidence. If you want to do corporate or criminal work, then take classes dealing with those areas. </p>
<p>But again, you don't have to know going in. Hopefully, you can get a paid of unpaid job your first summer that will give you some guidance, but many people are still unsure when they graduate, and just basically find their place in the firm that hires them.</p>
<p>Specialization is something that most often occurs after law school. A lot of lawyers end up specializing in an area of the law as a result of serendipity. They join a law firm after law school, they happen to be the warm body available to work on a new matter that comes in involving a particular area of the law, they do well on it and are assigned another, before long they are the office guru for that area of the law.</p>
<p>Most first-year and a fair number of second-year courses are the same for all students, and include the basic courses of law. I would not suggest that someone take evidence only if they are interested in being a litigator. Principles of evidence come into play in practically all areas of law, not to mention real life; any lawyer shood understand the basic evidentiary rules.</p>
<p>Just to clarify -- I did not suggest someone should only take evidence if they were interested in litigation. Rather, I simply noted that they definitely should take evidence if they were interested in litigation.</p>
<p>That said, evidence would presumably be less relevant in other areas of law (and I'm not sure how it would come into play in real life), but that's up to the individual student.</p>
<p>Cardozo: let me clarify my statement.</p>
<p>Everyone who plans to practice law needs to take evidence, period. I point this out because a lot of law students that I have spoken to think it's boring and not necessary to take unless you are aiming at litigation. Not true.</p>
<p>My practice is intellectual property, mainly patent law. I have never litigated a case. However, in my field, I need to know principles of evidence in order to present arguments and evidence to patent examiners in trying to get patents. Submitting material that has insufficient evidentiary value (under the rules of evidence) to support the point I am making will result in lack of success on my part (or success that can't be sustained under attack).</p>
<p>Any attorney who deals in any kind of regulatory law has the same ssues. Applications for permits, environmental permi, you name it, will be denied if not based on valid evidence to support the request. I coild go on and on, but will desist.</p>
<p>Real life: ever get into any arguments where the other side is based on hearsay, rumor, innuendo, etc.? Knowledge of evidence really helps to deal with such arguments (common sense helps, too).</p>