This may seem like a super simple question but I would like to check to make sure I have the right idea. Does the state in which you go to law school determine the state you practice law in (e.g. I go to IU Maurer and have to practice law in Indiana. This would make sense do to preparation for state bar exams. Please correct me if I’m wrong thank you.
yes, you are wrong.
If you graduate from law school in Indiana, you could take the bar in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, California, etc.
Sure, each state may have a few odd-ball laws that you might have to learn for the local portion of the state bar – altho many state bars are just going to the natonial test – but even so, you can learn the odd-ball laws during bar review prep.
You need to take the bar exam in the state you want to practice in (unless the state has other arrangements like Wisconsin for graduates of its law schools). Many people do not go to law school in the state where they later practice.
Law schools teach general legal principles rather than the state laws of the state where the law school is located. You will always need to take a bar review course (or do other preparation) to learn the state laws for the state where you plan to take the bar exam and practice law.
While you do have free choice, my professor ( who’s a JD that attended a LS in California, now in texas) says that something he wish he knew when he applied for law school is that where you goto law school generally determines where you’ll work. Generally, firms tend to favor instate over an out of state. i.e. NY Law Firm favoring a Columbia over a Stanford.
But that’s just what my professor told me.
Bad example since NY firms don’t care about locality. The top firms in NYC just want top grades from top schools, and Stanford (and Boalt) grads can get as many jobs in NY as they want.
OTOH, many other markets to prefer some sort of ties to the community. Attending a local law school can help a bit, but doesn’t necessarily beat having family or other connections in the 'hood.
For example, the Pacific Northwest can be a tough nut to crack, but a New Yorker attending U-Dub is gonna have a much more difficult time landing a Seattle job over someone born and raised in Seattle but attending law school at Stanford.
Ditto the Bay Area. Attending Boalt is a plus, but a native from NorCal attending say, Columbia or Northwestern can readily get back to the Bay Area to work.
Of course, attending the T14 gives one a transportable degree should plans change.
fwiw, attending UT-Austin can be a big plus for those desiring to practice in Texas.
Things may be changing now that the Uniform Bar Exam is gaining wider acceptance.
I don’t think a NY firm would prefer someone from Columbia over Stanford–the reverse, actually. However, the Columbia person would probably have an easier time, logistically, having numerous interviews and opportunities that could lead to permanent employment (just by being in NYC, within a quick subway ride of slews of law firms).
The logistics work both ways. A lot of firms with offices in NY or DC don’t have people willing to fly out to CA to recruit, and vice versa. (I personally had this issue, since I went to school on the east coast and came to CA to practice.)