<li>When should one know which field of law they want to pursue? Should they know before they apply to law school, or after they’ve been accepted and enrolled?</li>
</ol>
<p>I browsed some threads here and there and someone said instead of worrying which field you want to get into, the only thing that should matter during your undergrad years is getting into law school. I guess that makes sense, but if you’re not sure which field is right for you, how do you know that law school is what you want?</p>
<p>I’ve been torn about going to law school for a while now. The only thing that’s holding me back is not knowing which field I want to get into. I don’t think I’d do well as a litigator, so I’ve been looking into transactional law, but right now I just have a vague idea of what that is: businesses and contracts. </p>
<p>That brings me to my second question…</p>
<li>Could someone tell me what skills are most valued in transactional law? Is a strong background in in econ and math required?</li>
</ol>
<p>If you're interested in law, then that's all you need. You can definitely decide what type of law you want to practice once you're already in law school. Depending on what interests you in undergrad, you may have a slight idea of what type of law you may be interested in.</p>
<p>Legal documents are typically written in Level 5 prose, according to the National Adult Literary Survey (commissioned by the Department of Education, and carried out by the Educational Testing Service in 1992). According to that survey, 3% of adults achieve Level 5 literacy.</p>
<p>In addition to developing the ability to read and write at that level of complexity, transactional attorneys have to understand the legal implications of possible changes to these documents, explain those implications to their clients, and negotiate back and forth with other parties to the agreement and their attorneys.</p>
<p>There are transactions where math is important (such as derivatives). The documents I work on rarely require anything much more complex than arithmetic, and when they do, frankly, there are other people on my team (accountants, for example) who crunch the numbers for me. (I work in-house as a transactional attorney for a Fortune 1000 company.)</p>
<p>I've told my kids that the kind of work I do is a lot like doing word problems.</p>
<p>The General Counsel of my company said something interesting the other day. He said that when he went to law school (after getting an MBA) he was only interested in litigation. If someone had told him he would be sitting in an office at a large corporation, he wouldn't have gone to law school! Well, after making partner at a good law firm in the Pacific Northwest, he went in-house and loves his work. He wanted out of the litigation rat-race and was starting a family. He works hard and the hours are still long, but he's really happy. I don't think you usually know what is going to interest you before you start law school- or even during in many cases.</p>
<p>I think you should have a general feeling of which type of law interests you before then...</p>
<p>and I agree, if you're not sure which field you're interested in, then I would try to figure out if you REALLY want to go to law school (I'm not saying you necessarily need to know exactly what you want to do, but make sure you're going to law school to pursue a legitimate interest)</p>
<p>I'm still torn now since thetruthcomesout posted. That was my way of thinking...I'm just worried that if I make this huge commitment it'll end up not being worth it if none of the fields interest me and I find myself rolling around in debt. </p>
<p>Well....actually what I'm really worried about is not necessarily whether or not a field will interest me, but the fear of whether or not I'd do well in it. Being financially successful is really important to me (it's something that I've promised my parents for a long time), and I'm absolutely willing to work hard to get the good grades/dedicate my hours studying for the LSAT, but I'm still worried in the end I won't have what it takes to be a good lawyer. Like I said, I'm not sure if I'd make a good litigator, which is why I was looking into transactional law. </p>
<p>I have another question: if you find that you really enjoy undergrad law classes, should that be a reason to consider going to law school? I know that undergrad courses don't even remotely compare with law school, but if you find the subjects to be really interesting and you want to go deeper into it, should that be a motivation? </p>
<p>I took a mass media law class and currently I'm taking a course called the place of law in multicultural conflicts and they're both just about the most fascinating classes I've ever taken. I admit those classes are one of things that sparked my interest about law school...I also interned at a magazine this past summer and I learned a few things about copyright that I also found to be really interesting.</p>
<p>If I weren't debating about law school right now, I'd be completely set on a communications-related career (most likely corporate PR); I'm currently majoring in communications with a minor in IR. Reading and writing are my strongest skills, and I enjoy the analyzing that I've done in my undergrad law classes......I'm just rambling now. If anyone has any insight it would be really helpful.</p>
<p>PS: I have gone to see a pre-law advisor at my school. She recommended that I go sit in on a class at the law school here, which is what I did last week. I definitely saw the socratic method at work there, which is honestly something I don't enjoy but I'll put up with it. She also said it sounds like I'd enjoy philosophy, so I'm considering taking a logics course next quarter....</p>
<p>if you really enjoyed your undergrad law courses, then maybe there is something in it for you after all... I'd try sitting in another law school class if you have the opportunity just to see if you find it any more enjoyable than the one you tried.</p>
<p>If it's only about financial success, then I'm sure you can find other ways to reach that goal (without having to take on more student loans and misery). Plus, not every lawyer is successful</p>
<p>Is there something in particular that interests you in transactional law?</p>
<p>No, it's not only about financial success. I know that not every lawyer is successful, so I'm entirely willing to put myself through a lot of misery to do well. I like to think I'd be able to handle it. :]</p>
<p>Like I said in my OP, there isn't much I know about transactional law. The only reason I'm looking into it is because I don't think I would do well as a litigator. But reading Greybeard's post, it sounds interesting to me. I do well at reading and writing (though not sure to the degree of a level 5) and I am very detail-oriented, which sounds like would be necessary when writing documents and negotiating with clients.</p>
<p>If you don't think you would want to litigate, then I would recommend getting an MBA instead of a law degree. Everyone getting a law a degree should first and foremost be willing and able to present in a court.</p>
<p>I can't agree with that, Philosopher. Most lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom and many litigators rarely do. The bulk of the work done in litigation involves writing - most decisions are based on the writing - not the arguing. One of the best litigators I know would never handle any matter in court. He made brilliant arguments on paper, could shoot a hole in almost any position taken by opposing counsel, but knew he was not cut out to be in court. He always had a colleague handle motions and trials.</p>
<p>Well then that person doesn't really need a JD then. They could have been just as effective not getting a law degree at all, or getting an LLB. A person can learn to complete out of court documentation with just a year or so of just experience, even. Just because many attorneys never actually enter a courtroom that does not mean they shouldn't be prepared, able, or willing to. If a person is not prepared, able, or willing to argue in court, then I would say earning a JD would not be the best option for that person, and there are many occupations that may be more suited, and less costly.</p>
<p>Being an attorney is hardly synonymous with being a trial lawyer. No one can sign pleadings unless he/she is a lawyer so only needing a law degree to go into the court room is just not accurate. There are many excellent attorneys who have no interest in doing court room work. The tough part of winning a case is doing the necessary research, undertaking proper discovery, formulating an argument with proper support in the case law or statutory law and presenting that argument in a cohesive, well written way. Very few cases are actually won or lost based on a court room performance - except on television.</p>
<p>Yes, but if you are working with co counsel, as your example eluded to, then that attorney who is actually in court could just sign the documentation. This is actually done a lot with both professionals, and interns or temps. This is also why law firms hire law graduates who have not passed a bar exam yet. I'm just saying, if you want to do this type of stuff, a law degree isn't absolutely necessary, and another degree may be better suited.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if you are working with co counsel, as your example eluded to, then that attorney who is actually in court could just sign the documentation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>someone who has not attended law school and passed the bar cannot by definition be a "co counsel."</p>
<p>practicing law involves ALOT that does not involve going to court. it involves counseling clients. and practicing law without a license is illegal. so ThePhilosopher, please don't give people advise that they can essentially perform the functions of a lawyer without attending law school. and by "functions of a lawyer" i mean functions that go well beyond going to court.</p>
<p>law firms do hire graduates that haven't passed the bar yet -- but what those associates can do is limited -- and their time with the law firm extremely limited if they don't pass the bar.</p>
<p>you refer to getting an LLB instead of a JD. an LLB was what many law schools used to call the basic three year law degree -- I think they all now call them JD. your reference to an LLB simply doesn't make any sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone getting a law a degree should first and foremost be willing and able to present in a court.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually a very high percentage of lawyers probably never set foot in court. i'm sorry but you are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding of the legal profession. being a lawyer simply doesn't equate with being a litagator. you are not doing any one here a favor by trying to argue that it does.</p>
<p>Maybe not, but the posts are very misleading to someone like the OP who isn't sure law is the right choice for someone who doesn't want to litigate. Advising someone to not go to law school because you don't want to litigate is like advising someone to not go to med school if you don't want to be a surgeon.</p>
<p>Well, maybe not completely. The advisor I spoke with didn't say anything when I told I wasn't sure if I wanted to litigate, so I'm assuming law school is still a requirement whether I want to or not. I really appreciate the comments from everyone, though. </p>
<p>The more I think about this the more I'm assured that this is something I want to pursue. If anyone has any more advice, feel free to comment. If not, wish me luck. :)</p>