<p>For example, in healthcare law, SLU is #1 and the University of Houston is #2, despite relatively mediocre overall rankings. In IP, UH is #5 overall, while you have schools like Santa Clara University at #4, etc.</p>
<p>Assuming that all schools accept all comers (i.e. a hypothetical applicant can go whever he likes, T3 included) and that our hypothetical student is sure he wants to do, say, healthcare law - should he attend one of the schools that's rated highly in his subfield?</p>
<p>I think a law school applicant should go to the highest ranked school he can. The only exception would be if he knows he wants to practice in a specific state or region, he might be better off going to the highest ranked school in that area (e.g., UT Law if he wants to practice in Texas). I would only look at the specialty rankings if I were comparing law schools in the same tier.</p>
<p>They don't matter. I don't think anybody takes the subfield rankings seriously.</p>
<p>I agree with the previous two posts. Just go to the highest ranked law school you get into, and outside the top 20 or so, you should attend the best law school in the region you plan to practice in.</p>
<p>i guess it depends sometimes. it seems like people always mention going to vermont law school for environmental law over some of the top law schools. not sure about healthcare law though.</p>
<p>I think that's really just lower-ranked law school students trying to justify being where they are. It's sort of like a Berkeley student saying he didn't consider Stanford because they're all rich snobs :).</p>