Anonymous User wrote:Hi LFR,
I had a question about the way law firms view the courses you take. I have yet to take Trial Ad, Evidence, or any other litigation centric courses. In fact, my courses up to this point have been pretty much focused on transactional practices. Assuming I would prefer a litigation job over no job, would not taking evidence bar me from serious consideration in such job opportunities? Or is it more of a course that shows some interest in litigation but not something that would stop me in my tracks. I have other courses I'd prefer to take in its stead. Also, i'm a 3L who worked a litigation SA.
Thanks if you're still answering questions and sorry if this was already answered. I didn't look through the 50 something pages this thread is at.
Personally, we do look closely at the courses and tracks that students follow because we hire specific entry level associates for specific jobs in each practice area. We need to hire students that really want to be in those areas. I am not sure that other firms follow this direction, but they most likely do to some extent.
You look like you really want to be a transactional lawyer though. My suggestion would be to really think about the type of lawyer you want to be in 15 years. If litigation makes you miserable, stick with transaction-type track and focus all of your efforts in that area. While you can change the course of your career, it can be surprisingly difficult.