You are getting the same pushback that I have encountered on CC as to whether or not undergrad matters in LS admissions. How much of a factor is certainly open to reasonable debate, and I would argue that raw GPA is less important than relative GPA for that college, that major. But rather than rehash arguments over anecdotes or statistics that are incomplete, maybe we can take another approach and talk about process for selective positions. While I have not been involved in law school admissions, I have been deeply involved in Big Law Wall Street hiring. Thousands of law grads want to work for us. We have to make generalized decisions to cut the applicants we take time to seriously consider to a manageable number. Part of this is done by the law schools we will even visit. I covered Cali, and the only law schools we interviewed at were Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and USC. Hastings students could get an interview through Berkeley (but we applied different selection standards to them). But even within these 4 schools, our quota for callbacks offered were higher for Stanford and Berkeley. If you were in the top third, maybe top half of your class at those 2 schools, we would seriously consider you because we trusted that the law schools had already selected the best. Lesser law schools, you needed to be top 10% or better. From a process point of view, law school admissions is similar. Lots of applicants put through a funnel that narrows quickly. Some factors may be different, but the overarching goal is to assemble as strong of a class as possible filling in certain institutional “needs”. It’s hard to imagine that law schools do not use the quality and selectivity of undergrad as a filter similar to law firms.
On the question of major. Agree 100%, anything that interests you and requires lots of reading to digest quickly and requires you to write persuasively and concisely.