How detrimental is it to not specialize in one area of law by 3L?

[capitalttruth]

I wanted to splice this from a response I made to another user's post the other day. I want to know whether failing to specialize in any one particular area by a certain stage in law school will be detrimental to finding articling. I am about to embark on the Ottawa and Toronto articling recruit after striking out in the 2L summer recruit. 

I have high grades (A- average), and decent amounts of work experience, but I notice that I a) don't have much clinic experience, and b) have taken courses without any directed intention to specialize in one area. For instance, after completing all of my 1L courses, I took: advanced constitutional law, corporate law, trusts, 1 directed research project in administrative law, 1 directed research project in legal philosophy/indigenous law, a seminar in business law, a moot, and a seminar in health law. My initial hope was to earn high grades for a clerkship, or to practice aboriginal law. However, after experiencing some difficulties in obtaining either of these opportunities, I worry that I haven't chosen my courses with enough discretion. 

Is there anyone that has been through a similar experience? What can I do to change this in 3L?

Edited May 18, 2023 by capitalttruth

[LMP]

For the most part I've found the courses you take to be mostly irrelevant. No one's going to be blacklisting you because you didn't take a paticualr niche upper year course (they probably don't even know it exists). 

I think the real "danger" of being locked in, as much as it is one, comes with the place you work. The sense I've gotten is that once you've articled, it becomes much harder to shift practice areas. And the bigger the gap between practice areas the more difficult it becomes. 

What I suppose I'm getting at is, stop worrying about course selection and start worrying about where you'll land for articling. Because it will likely be the former that provides the most immediate direction to your career. 

As a little postscript I'll add that clerking seems to be sort a reset on the whole career trajectory thing. Letting you reopen doors that might have otherwise been nearly shut tight. So if you aren't happy with where you land have a go at clerking again. 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

25 minutes ago, LMP said:

I think the real "danger" of being locked in, as much as it is one, comes with the place you work. The sense I've gotten is that once you've articled, it becomes much harder to shift practice areas. And the bigger the gap between practice areas the more difficult it becomes. 

This might be true for the litigation/solicitor divide, but not even then.

 

Usually, I would say don't worry about becoming "stuck" in a practice area until you're around a year 4 call.

Obviously, if you can get into your desired practice sooner, at a reputable place, do so. But focus on skills development if you can't - you're far too green prior to that 4-5 year call range to get stuck in any one area.

OP you want to be able to show an interest in the firm you're applying to. You can do so with a wide variety of things - courses, moots, ECs, prior work experience, prior degree, networking, etc.

You don't need to have your entire CV/transcript fit the bill. So long as you have enough things to speak to in your cover letter.

[Conge]

It's not. At all.

Personally, I think taking a wide range of courses is better preparation for lawyering of any kind. 

There may be exceptions, such as law firms wanting to see at least a couple of tax courses before seeking out work from the tax group.

Edit: I'm talking about the "black letter" type courses. Taking a variety of "and the law" type courses (like, "literature and the law" or "animals an the law") wouldn't be my recommendation. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Conge

[PzabbytheLawyer]

Take what interests you. Beyond a few black letter law courses, it doesn't matter as much as your performance, which is impacted by your interest in what you're studying.

Yes, even those "and the law" courses.

[SNAILS]

I think you need to first determine the area of law you want to work in. You have a diverse array of courses that you have taken now. 

Take a bunch of those courses in third year. I suggest this not because you will "lock yourself in" but because it's time to make a choice about what type of law you think you might want to practice. Taking courses in that field(s) will confirm/deny your interest and perhaps be more enjoyable than taking courses in a field you do not want to practice.

 

[Hegdis]

I'll chime in with a different perspective, just for others who may be reading. OP, given your interests, this doesn't apply to you, but it's something others might want to keep in mind.

If any of you want to do criminal law, either as a defence lawyer or a Crown, you need to show a convincing interest in criminal law in school. I wouldn't hire anyone who hadn't taken Crim Pro, Evidence, and had some kind of clinical or mooting or volunteer experience proving they actually intend to spend time and effort outside of the minimum to pursue this area out of a sincere, authentic interest.

The reason I would be looking for those things is because a lot of law students, perhaps bamboozled by the OCI experience, have this silly hierarchy in their head wherein corporate law is at top and criminal is at the bottom. Having failed to get a corporate job, for some students, there's this sense of "well, I guess I could always do crim". Everyone I know tries to avoid these applicants. For starters they are almost inevitably bad hires because they 1. think they're better than everyone else they work with and 2. they plan to leave just as soon as some one offers them a toehold in an office tower. So they're hard to train, and often not worth the effort of training anyway.

The fastest way to cull these kinds of applicants from your interview rounds is to look at their course selection and their ECs. By third year, if there's no indication on paper that criminal law was ever seriously considered, they don't get an interview, and I don't care if they have three A's and edited the law school journal.

[CleanHands]

I found it funny that @Judgelight would attempt to derail any discussion where anyone made the point @Hegdis did above, by chiming in with "I did absolutely nothing whatsoever to demonstrate any interest in criminal law throughout law school and got hired as a Crown, so YMMV" when every other post of his was bitching about his pay and workload (while working a second job) and how much he hates his job in general. Because he's a living example of exactly why any criminal law employer who has any idea what they are doing avoids hiring someone like him, and he proved the point.

[TheDevilIKnow]

On 6/4/2023 at 4:48 PM, CleanHands said:

I found it funny that @Judgelight would attempt to derail any discussion where anyone made the point @Hegdis did above, by chiming in with "I did absolutely nothing whatsoever to demonstrate any interest in criminal law throughout law school and got hired as a Crown, so YMMV" when every other post of his was bitching about his pay and workload (while working a second job) and how much he hates his job in general. Because he's a living example of exactly why any criminal law employer who has any idea what they are doing avoids hiring someone like him, and he proved the point.

You're just jealous that @Judgelight had a better work-life balance than you... what with his chill, tax-free side job and all! 

Edited to add an actual, substantive reply for OP: Keep trying to develop and show interest in one or more actual practice areas, although I know it's late in the game...

But don't get it in your head that a broad array of courses is a bad thing. I went to a law school with a terrible course selection; it wasn't really possible to "specialize" anyway. I took 5 out of the 6 possible Crim courses, but that's still not that many and I don't think anyone reading my transcript would necessarily say "Ahh; a Crim keener." I assume employers know that a specialized courseload is a bit of a luxury that isn't available to everyone; try to show your interest in other ways.

Also: you can lean in to your broad transcript, rather than regretting it. Say that you wanted to learn about as many areas as possible (assuming this is true). I think you had a research background, maybe? Just make it clear that you have the skills to dig deeper and gain expertise in whatever area of work you're given. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by TheDevilIKnow

[ForTheWin2022]

Anecdotally, I found during the articling recruit that it made no difference except with boutiques in certain practice areas. It made absolutely no difference to the insurance defence firms (which typically have different practice areas within and who are the majority of recruiters during articling) or full-service firms. However, labour and employment, tax, and family law firms made specific reference to courses taken/extracurricular activities/volunteer work that tied into their respective fields.  
 

So I would say for a select few boutiques, it might be a harder sell not having a specific direction pointed to their area, but for most of the firms, looking rudderless in law school will likely make no difference. I think most employers (barring the above-noted exception) expect that you are exploring during law school. Just be sure to have an answer as to why you want to be at the firm you’re applying to and what draws you to the work they do.