<p>Do most law schools allow students to specialize in a field of their choice?
Those who specialize in a field of their choice, do they usually practice in that field after graduation?
Do employers hire based on one's specialization or do they hire anyone and force a specialization upon graduates entering their firm?
I ask these because I plan on specializing in corporate (very most likely), criminal, or civil procedure. Is it a good idea to specialize or should i attain a general law education throughout school and get a sneek-peek/general observation as an intern at a law firm that specializes in the field of my interest?
Most importantly, do I have nothing to worry about in terms of specialization and employment if I attend a top ten law school with decent credentials? Would everything turn out okay? Precise feedback would be nice. Thank you.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that there is no "specialization" in law school. Correct me if I'm wrong experts. I want to see how much I actually know about law school.</p>
<p>The first year is pretty much outlined correct? Not much room for choosing classes.</p>
<p>Then as you progress throughout law school you can choose courses. So if constitutional law or corporate law appeals to you, you can take more classes geared in that field. So in a sense, you can become specialized, but there really is no declaration like a major.</p>
<p>Also, I think you can participate in clinics that are specialized for your field of preference.</p>
<p>I did talk to one lawyer, who graduated from Yale Law years ago, last winter. She advised against trying to become too specialized, because it will limit your knowledge on other aspects that you may actually end up working in.</p>
<p>Well, through my research, specializing is becoming a bit more popular in today's generation of law school, but specializing is common in the newly accreditted institutes and smaller ones. However, if you say that there is no specializing or at least it isn't common in prestigious schools, then i have nothing to worry about; in fact, it takes a lot of burden off of my back in the sense that i would have a broad law education and that i can expand my options into any field of my choosing. And if need be, the employer that employs me forces a specialization upon me, then i would have a little bit of background in it. So, just verify with me one more time please that specializing is rare and that it's best to have a broad education instead of focusing on a specialty with little or no knowledge in the other fields.</p>
<p>That is my understanding from my discussion with lawyers. They encourage taking classes in a field that you like but not to the extent that your capacity as a lawyer is virtually linear. In my opinion, a liberal education best equips you for dealing with a multitude of situations.</p>
<p>I am hoping someone with more knowledge than me comments on this topic soon.</p>
<p>Thank you kindly</p>
<p>There's little specialization in law school. In some law schools, there are few electives offered. At my alma mater, students took one elective from a limited number to first-year students in their second semester, and only one required course thereafter (legal ethics, required for ABA certification). </p>
<p>Most law students choose to take courses on subjects covered by the bar exam, which doesn't generally leave that much time for other subjects. </p>
<p>Civil procedure isn't really something you specialize in; it's a set of rules (and some concepts underlying those rules) that you need to know to do civil litigation.</p>
<p>There are a few private attorneys who specialize in criminal cases, but most people accused of crimes have little money to pay an attorney, and generally end up being defended by someone from the public defender's office.</p>
<p>There is specialization creeping into a number of law schools and there are many experienced lawyers who believe that is a huge mistake. What is happening is that basic courses that used to be year long, like torts, property or contracts, have at a number of law schools become single semester courses, and courses that used to be required, like evidence, have become optional at a number of law schools. This allows some specialization to become possible because students no longer have almost all required courses during the three years. Nevertheless, as I mentioned there are lawyers who believe this is a mistake. For example, I know law firms that won't hire a new lawyer who has not had evidence, and that is even for non-litigation positions. In other words trying to specialize in law school will more likely limit your employment options rather than raise them. Also, evidence and other basic courses that are becoming optional are things covered on most bar exams, another reason not to avoid any of the traditional courses that most experienced lawyers (who do the hiring) took when they went to law school. </p>
<p>Traditionally in the law, specialities are built after law school and with experience, and law firms in general, regardless of any specialty they have, do not hire new grads on the basis of having any law school specialty. They are more interested in class rank, writing and communication ability, personality, and that the graduate had all the basic law school classes. Somewhat of an exception is patent law because there are actually graduate law school programs for that and often patent firms are looking for not just a law school graduate but one whose undergrad was science or engineering.</p>
<p>Large numbers of lawyers (and every very successful lawyer I know) ended up concentrating in a particular area of the law not by any plan or personal choice but simply as a result of serendipity. The young lawyer joins a law firm and some Friday afternoon there is an emergency project to be done on some matter and the young lawyer is the only associate available to help out or the only one willing to spend the weekend doing it. The partners on the matter get his work product and are impressed. Pretty soon, he is sent more matters of a similar nature; before long he is a guru in the firm for the applicable areas of the law and clients start to want him on their matters in that area of the law.</p>
<p>"Large numbers of lawyers (and every very successful lawyer I know) ended up concentrating in a particular area of the law not by any plan or personal choice but simply as a result of serendipity."</p>
<p>Absolutely!! That is how I wound up in my "specialty" area.</p>
<p>This all makes sense in every aspect of it. My problem is over and I now see myself with a broad law education instead of a limited one. Thanks!</p>