rad lulz wrote:
Also, in many secondary markets, it will be difficult to get a job there if you are not from there or have significant ties to the region, even if you go to the regional school.
Ah yes, I should have included this in my OP.
Relocating for law school is usually a bad idea. Relocating for law school to go to a mediocre T2/3 school in order to break into some hyper-parochial market? Just awful.
how much evidence is available for this? i don't really doubt it, but every lawyer i've spoken with, including in the supposedly insular PNW, said attending a school in the area is a sufficient "tie."
I agree. What does an employer care whether you were born and raised in the area or whether a prospect has relatives? To the extent that an absence of the typical types of "ties" might predict in an applicant a higher likelihood of relocating after a few years, an employer may have some cause for concern. But those concerns should be outweighed by the attractiveness of a candidate and the fact that high attrition is normal in the industry.
And consider schools like Notre Dame, Tulane, WUSTL and a few others. There are certain schools at which employers recruit knowing full well that a large percentage of the student body has "relocated for law school". But I will concede that those are top schools, whereas romothesavior
mentions T2/T3. Still, I know many people who have located to Florida to attend T2 schools like Florida State and done fine. I know people who have relocated just to attend S'western and are working at firms of varied sizes, or as in-house entertainment lawyers or talent/sports agents.