Legal research vs applying the law Forum

[powerfail]

I’m currently in my 2L summer. One thing I’ve realized from law school and my 1L and 2L summers is that I enjoy *applying* law more than *researching* it. In other words, I enjoy (and am better at) issue spotter exams than I was at my legal research and writing class. And even when I do legal research, I enjoy analogizing or differentiating the cases I’ve found to the case at hand more than going down westlaw rabbit holes to find those cases in the first place.

Are there practice areas that would be better/worse for me, based on this? Where I could spend some time learning the law, and then be able to answer clients’ questions on the spot based on the knowledge in my head, rather than having to say “let me get back to you on that” and then spend hours/days doing legal research?

[cavalier1138]

Where I could spend some time learning the law, and then be able to answer clients’ questions on the spot based on the knowledge in my head, rather than having to say “let me get back to you on that” and then spend hours/days doing legal research?

Pretty sure that would be malpractice everywhere. And you know by now that you can't apply the law to different factual situations unless you've done the legwork to actually know what the law is.

There are areas of law that involve less pure legal research, but those don't tend to involve the kind of work you're describing. And even when you've developed a specialization, you still need to keep up to date on recent cases, statutory changes, etc. to properly advise your clients.

[nixy]

There are areas of law that involve less pure legal research, but those don't tend to involve the kind of work you're describing. And even when you've developed a specialization, you still need to keep up to date on recent cases, statutory changes, etc. to properly advise your clients.

Yes, I would think the answer would be some kind of specialization in some kind of relatively routine area, like DUI or social security or worker’s comp. Cav is absolutely right that you’d need to keep up on developments in the law, but I’m pretty sure that in those kinds of practices, an experienced lawyer can answer a lot of a potential client’s questions at the first meeting.

I doubt those are the practices you want, but that’s what comes to mind.

Alternatively, stick around biglaw long enough to make partner. You’ll have enough of a grasp of the law at issue in your specialization to not have to start fresh with research every time, and in any case you farm out the actual research to other people. You may not know the answer off the top of your head, but you’ll know enough of the legal framework to know what research needs to be done.

In any case, I’m not sure this is a meaningful distinction when you have as little experience as you have now, when everything is sort of a deep dive. That changes over time.

[powerfail]

What about something like employment discrimination? That strikes me as an area where the law is pretty well established and is based on a few easy-to-understand principles, and the challenge is more about applying it to a complicated factual scenario. Is that an accurate assessment?

[Aapl]

What about something like employment discrimination? That strikes me as an area where the law is pretty well established and is based on a few easy-to-understand principles, and the challenge is more about applying it to a complicated factual scenario. Is that an accurate assessment?

I know of major personal injury firms that never ever research anything.
Same with firms that get people onto SSI.
Military medical discharges, same thing.

[beverlyone]

I think that employment discrimination laws are well-established and based on clear principles. But yep, applying these laws to complex situations can be challenging.